Threads by Most Recent Post  Hot Threads  Post Index  Thread Index  Eye Scene Front Page

Acuity and Prescription II

Post to This Thread


Cactus Jack 19 Oct 2011, 12:02

country girl,

Image size reduction primarily applies to glasses and is caused by what is called Vertex Distance which is the distance from the front of the cornea to the back of the glasses lens. Contact lenses have a Vertex Distance of Zero. Image size reduction does not particularly affect acuity until you get into very high minus Rx. The reason for this is that the retina has many millions of rods and cones (light sensors) so a small reduction has little almost no effect. Curiously, many people like to be slightly over corrected because the images seem sharper.

You will see best if the astigmatism is accurately corrected. Glasses provide the best correction and you really want it corrected. Contacts are different. Sometimes, a compromise sphere only contact lens Rx is used to avoid toric contact lenses, which have their own set of problems. The compromise is to increase the sphere by 1/2 the cylinder. Sphere only contacts only come in 0.25 diopter increments in your Rx range. Toric contacts are not available with cylinder less than -0.75.

Your optician probably used a trial frame and there is probably a tiny knob on the outside edge of each lens holder that is used to adjust the axis.

You didn't mention where you live, but opticians in some countries tend to under correct. It seems to be pretty common in the UK. If you think you are slightly under corrected, you can get a new exam and order the glasses on line with a slightly stronger Rx, we can tell you how.

C.


country girl 19 Oct 2011, 10:32

thanks cactus jack for replying back, this is the first time i have posted a question on here.

I have read somewhere that the image size is reduced by 2% for every 1 dioptre of prescription, so in the eye that I am not seeing as well out of, does the reduction in image size only play a arole with glasses and is it minimised or eliminated when wearing contacts seeing as they are right on your eye? if so, would the approx 6% make so much of a difference combined with the potentially off astigmatism correction account for why i cant see the 6/6 line?

Also at the next test, am i able to request the optician not to put any astigmatism correction in , or is that not an acceptable thing to do? I know that they are qualified in diagnosing and correcting eye defects but if i feel that i could see better without that astigmatism correction, do i have any input as a patient?

im not quite sure what you mean by placing my own hand on a dial of some sort , as the last test i had i had those big glasses frame put on my face and he was doing all the lens moving.


Cactus Jack 18 Oct 2011, 19:58

country girl,

It is easily possible that the astigmatism in your glasses is not right. Low astigmatism correction is very hard to prescribe because its accuracy depends on your skill more than the skill of the optician. I know it sounds funny, but to get it right, you have to be able to judge relative degrees of blurriness. Letter with straight lines make that hard to do. I usually do two things. One, concentrate on an "O" if possible. Also, I ask the examiner if he/she will let me fine tune the axis for sharpness at the appropriate time. Often they will place your hand on the axis adjusting knob and you can move it back and forth a few degrees - like fine tuning an old TV - for the sharpest image. Remember, the examiner can not tell what you see only what you tell him you see.

Astigmatism is generally caused by uneven curvature of he front surface of the cornea. The amount of unevenness is extremely small for small amounts of astigmatism. For-0.25 it would be a fraction of a mm. Hard contacts can easily correct the unevenness and soft contacts can smooth the unevenness some and -0.25 doesn't take much smoothing to fix so it is easily possible that you see better with the contacts.

Mention the difference to the examiner at your next exam.

You are pretty close to the Rx where there is a difference between glasses and contact Rx. That Rx is between -4 and -5 in your glasses. It should not be necessary in the -2.75 to -3 range.

C.


country girl 17 Oct 2011, 18:34

hello just need some advice, I have a glasses prescription and a contact lens prescription for -3.00 and -2.75, the only diference is the glasses has a -0.25 astigmatism correction for the -2.75 lens, I had an eyetest about a year ago and couldnt read the 6-6 line out of my -2.75 -0.25 eye but could see the 6-6 line with the -3.00 eye,

i shortly got contacts, without the astigmastism correction in it and i found that i could easily see the 6-6 line with the -2.75 eye

is it posible that the astigmastim correction isnt right for my eye and causing me problems to see, i also mentioned this to the optician that i am able to see things with much more shaprness and clarity when i wear contact lenses and he said that people in my eyesight range tend to see better with contacts, what are other peoples experiences of this, can you see better with contacts and is it becasue of the reduced minification( i think thats what the optician called it)

iv got a test coming up soon and its causing me a bit of worry that im not going to be abkle to read the 6-6 line, even though i know that my eyes are capable of it in contact lenses


Soundmanpt 16 Oct 2011, 10:40

Jess

If it has been as long as you say it has been since your last eye exam, I think much has changed. Expect the exam to take about 35 - 45 minutes and now eye exams can even determine if you have diabetes or even heart trouble. And of course it cover all phases of your vision.

Computers have become eye doctors best friend over the years. It is not surprising that working at a computer for long hours each day for the past year is having an effect on your vision. What you described is very normal, the burning of the eyes, feeling tired and noticing that car plates and other things after dark are increasing more difficult to make out. what happens to most is you become transfixed on the monitor and your eyes get set at looking at the same distance for long periods of time and you tend to not blink enough. Everyone that spends their day at a computer should make a point to take breaks and look away from the monitor and off into the distance so their eyes have a chance to refocus every so often. It is almost certain that you will be prescribed glasses for distance and since the computer is a factor I would suggest that you also wear them while on the computer as well.

Do let us know the results of your exam and be sure to ask for a copy of your prescription as well.

By the way will you be okay with wearing glasses or a little shy about it? It may help now if you mention to friends, family and co-workers that your going for an exam and you think you may get glasses. That makes wearing them much easier for the first time.


Jess 16 Oct 2011, 09:18

Hi everyone have just found this site after looking for some information on eye tests.

I have booked my first eye exam in a very long time, as I have started to have problems with my eyesight. It has all started in the last couple of months, I think it might be due to my new job which i started about a year ago which involves being on the computer for the majority of the day.

I have noticed that my eyes started to ache and feel tired in the evenings after being at work. I have also noticed my vision at night doesn't seem as good as it used to be.

I was wondering what to expect at the eye exam as I can't really remember my last one.


very progressive 03 Aug 2011, 14:29

As I had mentioned on another thread, I have now been told that I have very early cataracts. My opthalmologist (an assoc of the Dr I used to see) told me she could see that my lenses were showing signs of crystallizing?

As I had recently gone to an optometrist to fit me with multi focal contacts (different practice), and had been told that I don't have cataracts, I am concerned. When realizing that I had come in without my glasses on. She did not know that I had received contacts from another Dr., she was concerned that I wasn't wearing my glasses as much as I need to. I told her that I had been wearing contacts, and removed them for the exam.(medical problem, not a refraction). She questioned me as to when I wore my glasses. I told her most of the time. She seemed bothered by that , (although my rx is not at all strong), and informed me that I should consider wearing my glasses more. I asked her vaguely about the progression of presbyopia and at what age it would stabilize. I beleive she may have meant the cataracts, and said that vision increasingly gets worse, and never better. She is concerned about my not wearing my glasses as she states I will develop asthenopia (eye strain). Is her concern about my not wearing glasses (have a mild rx) because of the cataracts?, am I likely to need increasingly stronger glasses?


Brian 01 Aug 2011, 22:29

Since getting the 3D Base In Prism Prescription in each eye back in February I have noticed I am a little more walleyed especially with glasses on, which I wear all the time anyways. I assume this is normal.. My left eye tends to sit a little farther out then my right eye. I'm not crazy about the way it looks because I look a little cross-eyed/wall eyed now and never remember my eyes sitting like that before even when I had a 2D base in prism prescription in each eye. But the prescription is very comfortable.. I have tried my older glasses on with no prism just to see what it feel like and I feel a big pulling effect in my left eye and everything is double when I try to read. With noticing how my eyes sit now, I am worried I will need another prism increase at my next exam.. I'm just not too crazy about the wall eyed look and my left eye sitting so far out.. Anyone have any thoughts?


Cactus Jack 15 Jun 2011, 18:34

Buck,

With your cylinder correction, axis is pretty important. Something is obviously wrong. I would like to suggest another exam by a different examiner, but before you do, you could use some tips on how to participate more actively in your exam to get it as close a possible.

May I ask where you live and where you got the two exams?

C.


buck 15 Jun 2011, 17:40

Apologies, Catus Jack, always appreciate your insights. I didn't mean to be ambiguous. My main question was does the chart being off to the right by a couple of feet or more affect the exam outcome. I'm not sure I understand the last paragraph of your reply. There was only one distance chart.

BTW it wasn't that my question was unanswered, but that it appeared immediately after I sent last week, then disappeared from the thread. There's no old prescription to find.

Anyway, here's the old and new if it will shed any light.

Old

+1.50 -2.50 84 1/2 Up

+1.25 -2.75 80 1/2 Dn Add +2.50

New

+1.50 -2.25 80 1/2 DN

+1.25 -3.00 85 1/2 Up Add #2.25

Cheers!


Cactus Jack 15 Jun 2011, 08:01

Buck,

The probable reason you have had no response is that you didn't supply enough information to provide an explanation.

I can't speak for others, but I do not maintain records of every Rx I am asked about and I do not have time or inclination to go back and manually search all the posts on all the threads to see if I can find where you posted it last. Please include your COMPLETE (all elements) Rx and If we are being asked to explain differences between two Rx, we need both Rx and the elapsed time between them.

One of the most common reasons for small differences in Cylinder Axis is measurement error caused by lack of exam experience on the part of the patient. I have explained the reason for this many times. Accurate determination of the Axis is very subjective and requires the patient to judge relative blurriness of two images as the examiner flips a supplemental lens 45 degrees each side of the trial axis. It is not easy and a few degrees don't make a lot of difference in blurriness at low cylinder powers. I suspect the reversal you stated is simply a coincidence and within the range of typical error is the cylinder is -0.50 or less.

Another common reason for a big difference (around 90 degrees) is one Rx is written as - cylinder and the other is + cylinder. Either one is valid and if the lens maker is given a + cylinder Rx, he will convert it to - cylinder and make the lens.

I can't explain the differences in vertical prism except to say that prism determinations can be highly variable except in rare instances where the eye positioning muscles or their control system cannot function at all.

If the glasses are not right, you need to have them re-made from a new exam. Even small errors in vertical prism are difficult for you to compensate for. Your muscle control system is not programmed to allow individual control of vertical motion of your eyes.

Theoretically, with proper calibration of the optical powers of the exam equipment, the eye chart can be at almost any known distance. However, my experience has been that the most accurate exams are where the distance eye chart is actually 20 ft or 6 meters away. Many exam rooms have mirrors to keep their size small, but they are compromises and not as good as the real thing, partially because the mirror coating is on the back side of the glass (for protection) optically accurate mirrors are front surface, but they are subject to becoming tarnished.

The distance from you to the chart is VERY important, you need to not allow yourself to be distracted from YOUR chart of you introduce variables that can affect the exam results. By concentrating on the wrong chart, the exam is invalid and the resulting glasses are likely to be not right. Actually, the fault may be yours and not the examiners. A good eye exam is the result of good teamwork between you and the examiner. The examiner has no way to see what you are seeing and you have to give him accurate answers to his questions.

C.

C.


Buck 14 Jun 2011, 19:04

I posted earlier on to "Vision", but my questions seems to have disappeared from the thread.

Had an exam recently. My axis was reversed with new script changing from R85 L80 to R80 L86. Also I've always been told I need vertical prism R up L down or that I did not need vertical prism. This time I was told I needed different opposite prism for near and far.

The new glasses did not work.

Question: the exam chair was opposite the exam room door, the chart off the right of the door so I was always focusing off to the right during the distance exam. Could this affect the axis and/or the prism since I was looking at different angles near and far?

Also, I know it’s all supposed to be calibrated, but does it ever make any difference how close the distance chart actually is?

Appreciate any insight.


buck 10 Jun 2011, 11:57

Had an exam recently. My axis was reversed with new script changed from R85 L80 to R80 L86. Also I've always been told I need vertical prism R up L down or that I did not need vertical prism. This time I was told I needed different opposite prism for near and far.

The new glasses did not work.

Question: the exam chair was opposite the exam room door. The chart off the the right of the door so I was always focusing off to the right during the distance exam.

Could this affect the azia? And/or the prism since I was looking at different angles near and far?

Appreciate any insight.


Cactus Jack 30 May 2011, 11:45

russell,

You are right. Auto refractors print out the sphere, cylinder and axis that they measure and the examiner can use that as an initial setting of the phropter which is essentially what they do as a result of the initial (objective) part of an eye exam. All a machine or a human examiner can really tell by looking into your eyes is how an image appears to focus on your retina, not what you are seeing.

In some countries, particularly where myopia is extremely common, glasses are sold based on the results of a auto refractor. I suspect that it does not take very many exams to get a pretty good idea of how far off the auto refractor is from a prescription the customer will be satisfied with and adjust it accordingly. From a sales point of view, in a predominantly myopic market, a little bit of over correction in sphere would be the smart thing to do because it can be compensated for by a little accommodation.

Some members probably have experience buying glasses prescribed by an auto refractor. Perhaps they can tell us about the experience.

C.


russell 30 May 2011, 09:10

Never having seen a printout for the autorefractor, I assumed it was a prescription determined by a machine, thus leaving the examiner not much to do when prescribing. I preferred the old days when the doctor did it all him (or her) self. Am I wrong in assuming that in some countries, glasses are sold based on an autorefractor exam only? I seem to remember seeing optical shops in other countries that have an autorefractor on the counter, waiting to be used by the customer. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.


Cactus Jack 29 May 2011, 20:30

russell,

I doubt seriously if you could "beat" an auto refractor, nor is it worthwhile trying.

First of all, they are not extremely accurate anyway and they are rather quick. By the time you figure out what you want to do, they have made the measurement. They really have only one function ant that is to perform the objective part of the exam where the examiner looks in your eyes with an opthalmoscope to get an Idea of your approximate Rx.

You are much better off getting the most accurate Rx you can and then ordering the Rx you want online as long as you understand what you are doing.

Andrew,

Eye exams have been done without auto refractors for years. Many examiners still prefer to do the objective part of the exam manually. Your final Rx is determined in the subjective part of the exam where you tell the examiner what you see.

C.


Andrew 29 May 2011, 14:05

I have never knowingly seen an autorefractor, let alone been tested by one.


russell 29 May 2011, 10:23

I posted this question before and got no response, so I'll try again: is there any way to "beat" the autorefractor? What I mean, can you make it register a higher prescription than your really need?


Daria 24 Feb 2011, 06:47

Hi!

I am just curious. If somebody have prescription +1.00 -6.00 5 whether the eye seems to be bigger? And if somebody have prescription -5.00, +6.00 x 95 whether the eye seems to be smaller? Or is it still the same?

Thank you

Daria


Cactus Jack 23 Feb 2011, 15:07

Peter,

H: -0.75 -2.50 169 becomes -3.25, +2.50 x 79

V: +1.00 -6.00 5 becomes -5.00, +6.00 x 95

Note that when the lens maker actually grinds the lenses they will convert the Rx back to - cylinder and make the glasses.

C.


Val 23 Feb 2011, 15:06

I hope I'm right:

H: -3.25 +2.5 79

V: -5.0 +6.0 95


Peter 23 Feb 2011, 13:43

Hi my girlfriend have a new rx:

H: -0.75 -2.50 169

V: +1.00 -6.00 5

Can anybody rewrite it with + cylinder?


Brian 22 Feb 2011, 18:56

So I got my new glasses with the 3D Base in Prism for each eye... They will take some getting used too.. This is the 1st time i've used them on the computer. They seem a little more comfortable.. But still feel more pressure on my nose and my eyes seem to be taking a little while to get used to them. The inside edges seem a lot thicker to me than my last ones which were 2D Base In each eye. Here is the link to what they look like... The pictures aren't the best.. But they will at least give you an idea of the thickness of the lenses.. Zoom in for a little better look..

http://community.webshots.com/album/579809274vZmcxf

I really hope they don't get much stronger. Because 3D Base in is strong enough looking.. At least they are on the inside edge instead of the outside edge because the inside edge isn't as noticeable. I have a feeling though I'm going to continue to need more prism because my eye doctor has said several times, she could give me a lot more prism but didn't want to give me too much too soon.. My glasses won't look too pretty if I get over 5 to 6 D of prism in each eye. I even have high index lenses in my glasses, but i don't think that affects the prism correction at all. I have also noticed since I 1st got the prism in my glasses last year if I take a photo without my glasses, my eye wanders out. So I really try to keep my glasses on for pictures. I'm sure if I wear these for a few days I'll get used to them. I'll let you know how it goes.


Soundmanpt 09 Feb 2011, 14:45

Kylie

In my opinion there is not much you can do to reverse what is happening. That is your actual rx may drop back some more. But as you asked the other day about what prescriptions can be worn full time? Well -1.50 and -2.00 is still in the area where full time is a good idea. But remember very few people know much about rxs and I have friends that only wear -.50 and they wear them full time for fashion mostly. The only thing that you can do is what your doing, continue wearing the strongest glasses that your eyes can tolerate and never mind what your actual rx is. If your -3.50's are too strong back down to maybe -3.00 or even -2.75 whatever works for you. Wearing stronger than need glasses can't hurt in trying to keep your true rx up some.


Kylie 09 Feb 2011, 14:25

Thanks Tom, Soundmanpt and Aubrac

My current prescription is only -1.50 and -2 and it seems to be getting less each time I go. I used to have -2.5 and -2.75 and I wore my glasses alot of the time, I got lots of compliments and really felt that they made me look more serious. I'm really disappointed that my prescription is going down and i'd really like to stop it. I feel glasses add to my look but I don't want to wear what might look like quite a low prescription full time. If I could coax my prescription back up again it would be a brilliant result. Is it possible?


Aubrac 09 Feb 2011, 02:35

Kylie

That depends on the optician and how keen he is to sell glasses.

I took my 17 yo daughter for a check up several years ago and he prescribed +0.25 in one eye, plano the other, needless to say we did not bother getting it filled. A couple of years later she was tested at 20/20.

It depends entirely on the individual, my wife's first scripp was R +0.50 -0.25 30, L +0.75 -0.50 130, she found this improved both distance and close work.

What prescription have you been given?


Soundmanpt 08 Feb 2011, 17:47

Kylie the question you ask has been asked many times in her and I am sure if you go back in this thread and some of the others you will find answers given more than once. Simple answer is it can be different for each person and what type of rx you have. In other words there is no set answer. If or when you post your rx someone may be able to give you suggestions on how much you may need to wear them.


Tom 08 Feb 2011, 17:31

Kyilie, I am SPH +0.25 CYL -0.75 90 axis in both eyes. My eyedoctor advised me to wear my specs full time, which I do. If not I really experience trouble for both near and distance vision.


Kylie 08 Feb 2011, 15:47

What would be the lowest prescription that an optician would suggest that their patient would wear full time?


Cactus Jack 08 Feb 2011, 15:09

Brian,

I doubt if you will notice 1 prism diopter difference very much. It is about 0.57 angular degrees more divergence in each eye. BI prism is not as easily tolerated as BO prism.

C.


Brian 08 Feb 2011, 13:06

Cactus Jack, You were right, I did see a prism increase going up to 3D BI in each eye.. The Eye Doctor said she could have did more, but did not want to give me too much prism too fast..She said I could probably tolerate 5 to 6D easy in each eye, but she'd rather more slowly introduce it.. I'll try to post a picture when I get the new glasses next week.. Do you think I'll notice any difference going from 2D to 3D in each eye?


JR 04 Feb 2011, 14:50

CJ is sure correct. I do GOC all the time and I have several combos from -5 all the way to -20. When I first started I had trouble walking and driveing but now it is all normal. I can switch and there is no problem.

I even pilot (fly) in them now. At first I couldn't have done that at all.

I also have the plus side and I have never gotten used to that look. Everything stays bigger. In my +12's it is still hard to walk.

With the minus I am a little sorry that they are now normal. I liked the feeling before.


Cactus Jack 04 Feb 2011, 07:06

Astra,

There should not be any difference in 1,3, & 4 of those factors mentioned, provided the frames a appropriately sized so the optical center of the lenses is close to the central axis of vision. There would be a small increase in convergence to read at the same distance of the wider spacing and geometry involved. The wider spacing should theoretically improve depth perception and 3-D perception because of the wider spacing of the two "cameras".

If you have ever seen a 3-D cinema or TV production where they make something many meters or feet away (distance to the screen) appear to be in your face, that is done by increasing the spacing between the two cameras. However, remember that vision actually occurs in the brain and everyone's brain learns to deal with the images as presented in constructing your perception of the world. A person's PD changes from birth to adulthood verrrry slowly so the brain has a lot of time to work out the differences. A good example of how the brain can compensate for image differences, consider the minification effects of changing from from contacts to glasses when a person need a high minus correction and how quickly the brain compensates. It is almost as if the brain stores two image processing algorythms and loads the appropriate one for the situation. GOCers, really experience the effect when they first start wearing a high minus combination, but it is amazing how quickly the brain compensates for the image size on the retina and everything just starts to look "normal".

C.


Astra 04 Feb 2011, 01:44

I wonder does different PD affects eyesight ?

say small PD of 55-60 mm, and large PD of 75 mm (myself).

Are there difference in

1. corrected acuity ?

2. convergence ?

3. eyeglass edge thickness ?

4. peripheral vision ?


Cactus Jack 03 Feb 2011, 20:40

Brian,

BI prism is much less noticeable than BO prism. For the most part if people notice anything is is the thickness of the outer edges of the lenses. With BI prism, the outer edges get thinner and the inside edges get thicker.

I don't think this is the time to get too worried about appearance. Your vision is the primary consideration.

C.


Brian 03 Feb 2011, 19:30

Cactus Jack, Without my glasses, I see double a lot now.. I've tried my old glasses with no prism correction, and I feel my left eye drifting out some and if I try to use the computer or read, I have a headache within 5 minutes.. With my current prescription with the prism, I still notice at times when my eyes are tired or relaxed I still get a little double vision and have to refocus things when reading or using the computer.. Most of the time its not bad.. Kinda of reminds me of the way things were before I got a prism correction originally. I do notice more fatigue now than when I first got the prism correction which makes me think I might see an increase. Hopefully it will stabalize soon because I've seen some of the thicker prism prescriptions and they don't look pretty. 2D is probably not noticable to anyone unless I tell them I have a prism correction in my glasses but im sure if it increases anymore it will start to get more noticeable. Thanks for the response.


Cactus Jack 03 Feb 2011, 19:15

Brian,

Are you noticing any double vision when your eyes are very relaxed or when you read? 2D of prism is not very much but it is it is useful to see how well you tolerate BI prism and if the prism increases your comfort. I suspect you will be prescribed a bit more prism if the current prism has helped.

C.


Brian 03 Feb 2011, 11:44

I'm going to get my annual eye exam next week. It will be my first exam since getting a prism correction in my glasses last year so I'm interested to see if my prism will stay the same or increase or maybe decrease(I doubt that will be the case). I have a feeling it will increase because I was told the 2D Base In prescription I received in each eye last year was likely a starting point. My distance prescription was relatively stable last year staying at -6.00 and -5.25 so I don't expect much of a change there. For those of you that wear prism did you notice much of a change after you went for your 1st exam after getting a prism correction? I'll let you know next week how things turn out.


Cactus Jack 01 Feb 2011, 10:39

Tom,

I think you have enough information to order some glasses from an online retailer if you want to. If you feel uncomfortable doing that, I think if you could find an Eye Care Professional to prescribe some glasses for driving with a low minus sphere correction.

You need to be aware that it will not be long before presbyopia rears its head, but even when it does, you may find that bifocals are not the full answer for both work and general wear.

If asked, I would suggest that you try some low cost glasses from Zenni Optical with the following Rx.

OD Sphere -0.50, Cylinder -0.75 x 90

OS Sphere -0.50, Cylinder -0.75 x 90

The only other thing you need to place an order is your Pupilary Distance (PD). If you don't have it, you can measure it very easily with a rule marked in mm and a bathroom mirror. I think Zenni has instructions on their web site, but I will tell you how, if you can't find it.

Because this is an experiment, I would suggest ordering a low cost frame similar to your prescribed glasses, if possible, and perhaps the anti-reflective coating for night driving. Even with International Shipping, the total cost will probably be less than US$25.00.

I hope this helps. If you have other questions, please ask.

C.


Tom 01 Feb 2011, 08:38

Cactus Jack, thanks for your advice.

I am 36 yrs old, working in finance (computer work and/or reading papers almost all day), living in the NL.

I presume that, whatever SPH correction I want, I should not change the cylinder and axis? I might ask my optician to provide me with a low minus SPH together with my correct cylinder?

Cheers!


Cactus Jack 11 Jan 2011, 18:19

Tom,

Based on your Rx, you are very slightly hyperopic (long or far sighted), but the dominant element in your Rx is the astigmatism as indicated by the -0.75 cylinder. Astigmatism affects sharpness at all distances and would be most noticeable when reading small text at any distance.

If you went for another exam, unfortunately, you probably would not get the Rx you prefer. If you combine your GF's glasses and yours you wound up (approximately) with:

Sphere -2.75 Cylinder -0.75, Axis 90 in both eyes. The sphere over correction was accommodated by your internal crystaline lenses and the result was extremely sharp vision, particularly at night. The way your crystaline lenses compensated for the extra minus was by responding as if you were reading at about 13 inches or 33 cm even though you were looking at more distant objects. Depending on your accommodation range, you may or may not have experienced some discomfort trying to read with them, but the images would have probably been sharp.

By the way, intentionally wearing excess minus correction is what people do who would like to be more myopic or near or short sighted. They like the sharpness and slight minification offered by the over correction. Check out the Induced Myopia thread.

Depending on a few factors, you can order almost any Rx you want at very low cost, on line, without a formal prescription. We can teach you how.

Could I ask a few more questions?

1. Your Age?

2. Your Occupation? If attending University, your field of study?

3. Where you live?

C.


Tom 11 Jan 2011, 16:53

Two months ago when driving at night I told my girlfriend I experienced ble some trouble to discern the road from the pastures bedsdes it. She was in her glasses that night and jokingly passed them to me. I had never tried them on before (she's usually in contacts) but I did when stopping at a traffic light, and to my surprise things seemed sharper though "spinning" a bit. I went for an eye test the next weekend and was prescribed SPH +0.25 CYL -.075 90° for both eyes. I handed them back to her as I didn't feel that comfortable to drive in them, and she said she felt naked without.

However, when I got my glasses, I didn't experience much improvement when driving, but I did for closer work (computer, newspaper reading). This puzzled me as I remembered how my girlfriend's glasses did improve distance vision, which I told her. She got her glasses out of her bag for me and we did some "testing". The best result for distance vision was for me when looking to both her and mine glasses together. Close vision best with my glasses only. Hers are SPH -3.00 both eyes, no cylinder.

Should I go back to the optometrist? to another one? tell them what I found out beforehand or not?


Clare 11 Jan 2011, 15:38

Soundmanpt - my friend is similar to me, (she's -2.50 and -3 nowadays) so I knew she'd got it back to front! This was a new prescription last year and her old contacts were -2.75 so I guess the glasses prescription she had at the time was less.

And you have very good recall, my cyl is -0.50. I assume it'll stay the same, although a friend of mine had -0.75 of cyl that completely disappeared but here spherical prescription went up. So I suppose nothing is necessarily a constant.


Soundmanpt 11 Jan 2011, 14:02

Clare your friend had it backwords anyway. With a higher rx than -3.00 or -4.00, usually the glasses need to be slightly stronger than the contacts. This is because the contacts sits on the eye and glasses are about 1/2" away from the eye.

The only difference for you is your glasses have your astigmatism correction in them and your contacts don't as I recall. If I recall your cyl is only -.50. not enogh to bother with for the contacts. However at -.75 you may need to get toric lenses, sadly they are quite a bit more expensive.


Clare 11 Jan 2011, 13:33

... sorry, last post from me. Hit return too quickly!


 11 Jan 2011, 13:33

And - my contacts and glasses prescriptions have always been the same (which I understand is usual under -4). But a friend of mine was under the impression that glasses should be less than contacts prescriptions and was annoyed because her optician had given her the same for both.

Like Lenses - actually, not that long, probably 10+ years so I think I have a while to go before I have any corneal issues.And if it did happen? Well I guess I'd get on with it, I'd probably still take them off and on alot but that can be quite theatrical!


Like lenses 09 Jan 2011, 21:46

Clare

You have been wearing contacts many years now,and many people that I know have gotten to the point where their doctor says that they will have cornea damage if they continue to wear contacts.

Are you prepared for that day,should it happen?

I think that I would like you as a glasses babe! Maybe with a bit more Rx though.


And 09 Jan 2011, 16:47

Clare, what is the difference between your contact and glasses prescriptions ?


Clare 09 Jan 2011, 15:12

Soundmanpt - out of necessity I'm sometimes a glasses babe, I can't wear contacts 100% of the time! At the weekend, like today, I'm more than likely to make a trip to the supermarket wearing glasses.


Soundmanpt 08 Jan 2011, 12:19

Clare

Do remember to get your rx for glasses when you go just in case we convince you to become a glasses babe.


Phil 08 Jan 2011, 12:04

I'm on for a test next week Clare. Current frames are getting a bit loose and the lenses are scratched. I will report back! I am hoping to regain the -0.50 that the optician deprived me of last time!


Clare 08 Jan 2011, 01:06

Soundmanpt - yes, time flies. The annual test is January - used to be December but I think I was a bit slow on one occasion to book it! I don't expect any changes, so fingers crossed!


Soundmanpt 07 Jan 2011, 17:45

Clare

It seems like only a very short time ago that you had to go for your yearly contact check. Hard to believe it is a year already. I guess the older one gets the faster time goes by? If I recall you had no change last year? Do you feel your still okay without any increases?


Clare 07 Jan 2011, 13:55

Phil - happy new year to you too! I'm expecting the reminder for a contacts check up soon but nothing major. You?


Phil 07 Jan 2011, 05:27

Happy New Year Clare. Is it time for your eyestest? Have you seen the gorgeous glasses that Kate Silverton has been wearing? You just must get some!


Clare 06 Jan 2011, 14:44

And - I sort of covered this on another thread but I guess you must have been delighted :)


dave 04 Jan 2011, 12:42

i just got -2.00 sphere and -1.25 stigmitism are these strong because my glasses are quite thick


Soundmanpt 02 Jan 2011, 19:35

And

That is probably very true.


And 02 Jan 2011, 18:11

Clare, for the first time I've ever known, my gf complained of dry eyes last night and actually took her contacts out well before bedtime. She blamed the fact that we'd been in a really warm, stuffy house full of people all afternoon.


Obsessed 02 Jan 2011, 18:07

I think that the cut-in becomes very apparent once you reach -1.5 D in your RX. I have -0.5 and -1 glasses - they both give me a cut-in, but it's not that visible. But the -1.5 glasses make it visible.

And I think that you are right about high-index lenses. The lens is thinner, but the cut-in and the visual minimization of your eyes behind the lenses are not really affected by the index.


James 02 Jan 2011, 13:43

I know this question has been asked a thousand times before, but could one of the experts weigh in on the minimum prescription at which cut-in becomes visible?

Also, am I correct that the index of the lens material cannot alter cut-in, but only minimise edge thickness?


contact lens issues 29 Dec 2010, 16:32

hi clare,

did you find that your vision was ok in the air optix lenses? I have heard that they are quite good,

what is your prescription if you dont mind me asking?


Clare 28 Dec 2010, 13:45

contact lens issues - I wear contacts and have found a noticeable difference between brands, to the extent that they directly affect my near/far vision. I regularly wear Air Optix but fancied some disposables. I'd previously had to give up disposables as my eyes became sensitive to them. I tried Day Soft which were really comfortable, unlike my old Focus Dailies, but the vision I got from exactly the same prescription as my regular silicone hydrogel (Air Optix) wasn't comparable. I don't know why but it must be something to do with what they're made of.


Cactus Jack 20 Dec 2010, 16:53

contact lens issues,

Probably not, but you can order some on line without an Rx if you want to. Are the lenses a recognized brand or are they private label?

C.


contact lens issues 20 Dec 2010, 16:10

thank you cactus jack for making those suggestions

Would I be entitled to ask the optician to either give me -2.75 or -3.00 for both eyes as he has alrady seen me and signed off the sheet. I dont want to sound like I am undermining his work, but i still wonder why i didnt get given a -2.75 when thats what is in my glasses.


Cactus Jack 20 Dec 2010, 15:48

contact lens issues,

The difference could have been part of it, but I suspect the biggest part of the problem was the CLs.

Actually, with the -2.50s you are slightly under corrected for distance and you are getting little help in focusing on the music. The important thing is the comfort and utility for performance purposes.

The slight under correction with the contacts might cause your distance vision to be marginal for driving purposes, but perfectly acceptable for everything else. If you need to drive, just take out the contacts and wear your glasses.

If you find that you prefer wearing contacts and you need a little better distance vision, you can try -2.75 or -3.00 in both eyes. Just stay with the same brand, BC and Diameter as the comfortable -2.50s.

I'm glad you have found a solution. Please visit as often as you can. The more you learn about your vision and optics, the better you can manage it.

C.


contact lens issues 20 Dec 2010, 15:26

cactus jack

I have been having a little experiment with the contact lenses,

ive put -2.50 in both of my eyes, using my new pack and opening up one of the -2.50 lenses

I have noticed that the problem with focussing has gone, i can read up close without any problem, no ghosting around the letters and distance is fine

could it be that the -.50 difference between eyes was causing the issue? some sort of imbalance?

also i remember now, in the trial i had, i was actually wearing two differnt brands as they wanted to see which one i preferred, , you could have been right about the lens designs,

I play the clarinet and piano , i think you might be right, i probably play the instruments a little further away from the sheet music than i first mentioned.


Cactus Jack 18 Dec 2010, 14:37

contact lens issues,

That seems a little close to me, but of course it depends on your instrument.

I am more familiar with Pianos and Organs. On a large Organ with 3 or 4 manuals (keyboards), the music can be more than arms length away in the 30 to 40 inch range.

You should not be experiencing any issues with CLs that fit well if you are not having any problems with your glasses. If you were a little less myopic, you might be able to read the music quite well without glasses or contacts. In the -3.00 range, your focus distance is around 13 inches.

In winter with low humidities, eye dryness can be a big problem with contacts. If you have problems with low tear production, there are some new Rx (in the US) eye drops, called Restasis, that help some people increase tear production.

I urge you to get to the core of the problem. You might need to see an independent Eye Care Professional. Ideally one that specialized in CLs.

May I ask your instrument?


contact lens issues 18 Dec 2010, 12:45

cactus jack

thank you for your comments, I think I will make an appointment,

It is just annoying more than anything, as i can see perfectly out of my glasses

I guess i read my sheet music at around 16-18 inches

ive even tried switching my contacts around in each eye but taht doesnt work!!

thank you again


Cactus Jack 16 Dec 2010, 15:54

contact lens issues,

The previous post was from me.

C.


 16 Dec 2010, 15:36

contact lens issues,

Sorry about my error, that changes things a bit. Because the -0.25 cylinder is in the Right Eye and the sphere is -2.75, the compromise Rx for that contact lens would be -2.875 which is not available. Either -2.75 or -3.00 should be satisfactory, but I would choose -3.00 because you can easily accommodate the small over correction. The -3.00 contact should be correct for your Left Eye.

The reason for the difference between a glasses Rx and a CL Rx, other than cylinder compromises, is vertex distance, but its effects on Rx below -5.00 are so small that they are ignored.

I am wondering if there is not something else going on perhaps related to the base curve and perhaps tear production. Winter, with its low humidities are very hard on CL wearers with low tear production.

At your age, there should be an extremely low probability of presbyopia, but it is not out of the question. The fact that you have no problems reading with glasses confirms that it is very unlikely in your case.

I am mildly suspicious that there is some issue with the contacts themselves and I might be worthwhile to go back to the prescribing optician and express your complaints. Not all brands of contacts are alike, even though they have the same Rx, BC and Diameter. It is not unusual to have to try several brands to find the ones that you like best.

The same applies to CL solutions. The unfortunate thing about hydrogen peroxide solution is that it may not have any lubricant. Have you found any Artificial Tears with lubricant that you can tolerate? Another possibility are one day wear contacts. They are typically stored in sterile saline solution and no disinfection is required because you throw them away after each day of wear.

One thing you might try is slightly lower power CLs for use with sheet music. If you will measure the typical distance from your eyes to the sheet music. If you will measure the distance and let us know, we can suggest a CL power you can try.

C.


contact lens issues 16 Dec 2010, 14:50

cactus jack,

I have an astigmatism in my right eye and not my left eye, it is -.25 cylinder but I cannot locate the prescription so do not know the axis

I am wearing boots own brand of monthly lenses, so i am in the uk and using hyrdogen peroxide solution as the all in one types have caused me to have an allergic reaction

I have found that if i close one eye at a time, after a few seconds my vision up close and far tends to settle and i do the same with the other eye, the problem is when both eyes are working together

Could it be that the contact lenses may just be a bit too powerful for my eyes seeing as they are right on my eye and whereas the glasses are a bit futher away from my eyes?


Cactus Jack 16 Dec 2010, 09:08

Oops, the previous post was for RT

C.


Cactus Jack 16 Dec 2010, 09:06

RL,

Thank you for your confidence, but I have no experience with myodiscs. Many members with significantly higher minus Rx prefer them because they have considerably reduced edge distortion. Hopefully, they can answer your questions better than I can and offer real world experiences and suggestions rather than theoretical ones. It might be helpful if you would post your full and complete Rx.

C.


RT 16 Dec 2010, 08:58

Cactus Jack,

Please can I have your recommendation for myodiscs please. For an RX of -12.

Thanks


Cactus Jack 15 Dec 2010, 20:30

contact lens issues,

I need a little more information about your glasses Rx before can be of help on your CL Rx. If possible I need your complete glasses Rx. I am concerned about the following:

1. It appears that you have no astigmatism or cylinder correction in your Right Eye. If that is so, the CL Rx for that eye is theoretically correct.

2. You indicated that you have some astigmatism in your Left Eye requiring 0.25 cylinder, however you did not indicate if it was + cylinder or - cylinder. For now, the axis is not particularly important.

Ideally, a person with astigmatism should wear toric contacts to accurately correct it. However, toric contacts are expensive, hard to fit, and often do not give good correction for low values of cylinder because they often rotate on the cornea as you blink. Unless the toric CL is at the correct axis angle, they make the astigmatism worse rather than better. Glasses don't have this problem because the axis of the cylinder is fixed.

A compromise solution is to use a sphere only contact with 1/2 the cylinder added to the sphere correction.

If the cylinder correction in your Left Eye is +0.25 then a sphere of -2.50 would be a possible compromise. If the cylinder correction in your Left Eye is -0.25 then the sphere only CL Rx for that eye should be -3.00. Remember, adjusting the sphere to partially accommodate the cylinder is a compromise because the astigmatism is not corrected properly. Unfortunately, uncorrected astigmatism causes fine text and lines to not be clear at all distances and if you are left eye dominant you would likely notice it reading music.

Fitting contact lenses is an art and some brands of CLs work better for some people than others. May I ask the brand you are using?

Also, humidity and the lubricating quality or your tear film can make a difference. May I ask where you live and what brand of CL solution you are using?

C.


contact lens issues 15 Dec 2010, 18:29

hi

i have had some issues with my new monthly contact lenses.

my glasses prescription is LE -3.00 and RE -2.75 cylinder 25 and I dont remember the axis bit, I these glasses are great as i can see everything near and far very clear with them, no discomfort

i have recently tried contact lenses, and the contacts are

LE -3.00 and RE -2.50, i have noticed that my vision just seems to be a bit off, its like my eyes are having a hard time to focus, especially when im trying to read text, its particularly bothersome as i read sheet music and doing that whilst playing an instrument and trying to adjust to what my eyes are doing is really off putting

i am 23 years old and know i havent got presobyia as i can read very well and very close with my glasses on,

what could be going on here, im just confused!


Aubrac 15 Dec 2010, 07:32

Allan

I can't explain the mechanics of it but with my -5.00 add +2.00 contacts distance and reading are good but with plain -5.00 contacts (no add) I can hardly read.

However with my -5.00 glasses, distance is good and I have little problems reading.

Must be something to with the closeness of the corrective lens to the eye that makes for different acuity between glasses and contacts.


Allan 15 Dec 2010, 04:56

Hi all...long time lurker here. Not posted before (i think). I have an interesting problem that has got me beat and hope someone can 'explain'.

I wear -6.0 contacts pretty much most of the time. I also wear +2.00 readers over the contact at work on the computer. I've been doing this for a few years (i'm 38) as they help with reading. I usually will wear them most of the time in the office as distance vision does not matter all that much there as everything is close.

Last week I didn't bother to take them off when I went for a walk to get lunch as I wanted to read my favourite magazine. I noticed that didtance was rather clear! How can that be? I took them off only to discover that there was a slight blurr. So i left them on. I tried leaving them on for the rest of the day even on the way home. I was trying the on-off-on-off thing and i felt that they assisted for distance as well. The next day I also left them on intentinally during the day and i noticed that I could read distant book covers...before no chance. I left them on for a few days (even though my wife was saying not to) and started feeling that i needed them.

Now here is the issue...lurking around here for years made me become learned so I dug up an older pair of contacts that were -4.25 fresh out of a box (even though the expiery date was off) thinking that my age may mean that I need lesser Rx. I put them on and everything was blurry. I felt i needed that extra minus. I even tried my older glasses and same thing.

SO how can wearing +2 over -6 contacts give me clear vision while a -4 contact does not?


Edmund 14 Dec 2010, 23:15

Angela: I have worn prism glasses for about 3 years. I started out at 2 base in 3 years ago. Here is a link to my glasses: http://www.flickr.com/photos/57047542@N07/


guest 14 Dec 2010, 22:04

Dave,

You can do a lot better than the trial lens set you showed on eBay. Pay a little more and you will get much more (I bought a very complete, almost new set with trial frame for about $150). You can always resell it on eBay when you are through.


Angela 14 Dec 2010, 21:53

Edmund, It took a day or so to fully adjust to them. I could actually feel my eyes relaxing more with them on now. At first it felt like my eyes were repositioning themselves if that makes any sense. Not a bad feeling just different. But they really help. Computer work and reading is so much easier now. How long have you worn prism glasses? Do you have any pictures of your glasses? Hopefully mine don't end up being that strong. I do notice a lot of double vision now when I take them off. Not that I can even see much at all to begin with, when I am not wearing my glasses anyways.


Edmund 14 Dec 2010, 21:18

Hi Angela

I also have prism correction, 8 Base in per eye. How was it to adjust to those glasses? My RX is -3.25 cyl -1.25 add +2.25 8 base in each eye


Angela 14 Dec 2010, 18:17

I'm 31 years old and just got a prism correction for the 1st time as well. Unlike some others that posted earlier, I've always worn glasses, got my 1st pair when I was 8 years old. Tried contacts when I was 16, but dry eyes prevented me from ever wearing them with success. I was having trouble focusing when reading and thought I might need bifocals. The doc said its an eye muscle problem and have been reading with no problems since I got the new glasses with prisms. I'm 3D Base In for each eye. -6.25 -5.50. I uploaded some pictures of my glasses. Sorry they are not in great focus. I'll try to get some others up that are in better focus. http://www.flickr.com/photos/57062976@N06/5261647875/


Soundmanpt 16 Jul 2010, 15:51

Heather

Very glad to hear that it took care of the problem. I know you were concerned about not have clear vision from your right eye. Did they charge you for a new lens? I ask because how long was it since you were given the -4.25 / -5.00 rx? If it was only a couple of months they must have under prescribed you and should not have charged you. But the good news is that now with the stronger lens your vision is crystal clear. You should soon start to stablize I would think. I'm sure you hope so. Remember even though your glasses are a bit stronger again, the main thing is that you can see 20/20 with them. Once someone decides on full time wear via glasses or contacts the only real difference is what you can't see without them.

Glad you like your new glasses, i'm sure they look very nice and thin too.


Heather 16 Jul 2010, 15:31

As you may remember, I had noticed that my vision wasn't perfect in my right eye (my better eye) although I only had an eye exam a few months ago where I got a prescription of -4.25 (right) and -5.00 (left). I ended up going back to the optician to get to get my rechecked today and sure enough I got an increase in my right eye but luckily not my left eye. I am now -5.00 in both eyes. I got my right lens replaced immediately with a -5.00 lens and everything seems cristal clear now. Thickness is not really an issue as I got very thin lenses (1.74) and I have been used to the thickness from my left eye already. I am just glad my weaker left eye did not deteriorate.


Cactus Jack 15 Jul 2010, 18:41

Dave,

Be sure it includes a trial frame. You can learn a lot about optics and vision with just a few lenses, It is unfortunate that it does not have two of each.

C.


Dave 15 Jul 2010, 16:44

CJ,

Thanks for that.

Yes it has enough lenses to make either eye but not both at the same time. From this set I couldn't see how to get -1.75 and -2.25 cylinder at the same time.

The lenses are:

Concave Cylinder Lens: -0.25, -050, -1.00, -2.00

Convex Cylinder Lens: +0.25, +050, +1.00, +2.00

Concave Spherical Lens: -0.25, -050, -075, -1.00, -2.00, -3.00, -4.00, -5.00

Convex Spherical Lens: +0.25, +050, +075, +1.00, +2.00, +3.00, +4.00, +5.00

It is surely a low budget and less-than-adequate set for anyone in the business. I'm just interested in playing around and seeing if I can fine tune my Rx beyond what the optometrist says.

Dave


Cactus Jack 15 Jul 2010, 15:05

Dave,

You could, but most trial lens sets have two of everything unless some are purposefully missing. Theoretically, if you do the conversion from - to + cylinder properly, it should make no difference. In reality, lens makers, if given an Rx with + cylinder, do the conversion and make the glasses from the resulting - cylinder Rx. If the set does not have two of each lens, you can do as you described. If you do decide to have glasses made, be sure and convert the + cylinder back to - cylinder so that the Rx is in the same format for both eyes.

C.


Dave 15 Jul 2010, 13:50

Cactus or anyone else who knows.

Question about trial lens sets. I was looking at a cheap set on Ebay to play around with. http://tinyurl.com/2dlluhq

There aren't enough lenses to make my prescription. Is it possible to use - cylinder notation on one side and + cylinder on the other side?

for instance:

OD -0.50 -2.25 x 165

OS -0.50 -1.75 x 015 converted to -2.25 + 0.50 x 105

would the converted Rx give the same effect in a trial lens set?

Thanks,

Dave


ehpc 15 Jul 2010, 13:14

I bet you look just SO GREAT, Hollie:) Pete


Hollie 15 Jul 2010, 11:12

Got the new specs. Felt very nervous going into work today but I'm working in a smaller office (I have a split job role) so less people to comment! One senior manager declared they suited me, and was talking with another colleague about being previously worried they were a bit bold. He said not at all, they are nice. Still getting used to myself in them though- seems a little strange when I pass a mirror. It does give me two completely different looks though- bold specs and then contacts, which is quite nice.


ehpc 12 Jul 2010, 13:07

You will look just GREAT, Hollie :) Great choice of glasses :) Pete


Hollie 12 Jul 2010, 12:31

I have been my (natural) brunette for a while now. However am quite pale skinned which means the black frames look quite harsh. My last glasses were browny- gold, so I know the colour looks ok.


ehpc 12 Jul 2010, 09:19

What hair colour are you, Hollie?


ehpc 12 Jul 2010, 09:17

They sound great, Hollie :) COOL :) Pete


Soundmanpt 12 Jul 2010, 07:27

Hollie

They sound very nice even if you choose to only wear them at work. You may well find that it is too much bother to change to contacts after work unless you are going out for the evening and don't want the glasses look.

Actually just happy that you have found a pair you like.


Phil 12 Jul 2010, 03:44

Hollie, it sounds like you have your eye on some rather nice glasses. Get them and wear them. Whatever concerns you may have, the reality is that you will look gorgeous in them. I suspect that you know that too!


Hollie 11 Jul 2010, 22:56

ehpc

Brown plastic frames actually, with wide sides. I tried on lots and discovered black looks too harsh on me but the brown goes with my skin tone and hair a lot better. Most were also the wrong shape for me- lots are too rectangular, whereas these had a slightly softer shape on the corners.

Soundmanpt

It means I will be able to switch again. Might end up wearing glasses all the time at work, we will see!


Soundmanpt 11 Jul 2010, 19:23

Hollie

Does that mean you are finally going to stop fighting with contacts and wear glasses? At least for a while?


ehpc 11 Jul 2010, 14:56

Black rectangular plastic frames with wide sides Hollie? :) Or some of the new big plastic frames? Pete


Hollie 11 Jul 2010, 13:06

Soundmanpt

Have my eye on a pair of chanel frames after trying lots yesterday. Going back with my prescription later this week to order them- so will not be glasses-less much longer!


Soundmanpt 11 Jul 2010, 10:27

Hollie

May I remind you that a cheap pair from "zenni" is better than no pair. The quality and appearance of these glasses is every bit as nice as the big market stores offer. Better than dry, sore eyes!


Hollie 11 Jul 2010, 10:21

It certainly is for me, my eyes have felt dry all week and I don't have any glasses at the minute!


Andrew 10 Jul 2010, 11:27

Could it also have anything to do with air conditioning being turned up in this warm weather?


Clare 10 Jul 2010, 07:47

Aubrac - welcome to the capital city, and what a hot week it's been! Which part of the country do you live in? Interesting that you make the observation that there are lots of glasses wearers in town - if you add the number of contacts wearers (like my friends, Hollie, me ...) there must be a lot of people who could be wearing glasses. Plus, of course, those who should but aren't and it's a lot!


Aubrac 10 Jul 2010, 00:27

daffy/soundmanpt

I've been spending more time in London recently and was amazed at how many people are now wearing glasses. It could be that vision is getting generally worse with increasing use of close focus screens and would be interested to see the stats on this.

However, I think it is as Soundmanpt said, more to do with needing better vision for hand held devices, smaller text size, lower levels of lighting, etc. Also the fact that is more 'cool' now to wear glasses. In my local town far more teenage girls are wearing low plus glasses FT and seem to like showing off their glasses look.

Regarding prisms, I got my wife glasses with 3 degrees base out nearly a year ago. Since then she seems more comfortable wearing them and is nearly FT now. I got her spare also made up with prisms and tried wearing them for a few hours. The cylinder correction made me feel a little groggy and as though my legs were sinking into the ground, and after taking them off my eyes tried to cross for quite a time. I can only think that after FT wear for a few weeks, the eye muscles would get used to the adjustmnet, and it would be hard to do without them.


Allekks 09 Jul 2010, 23:33

@ daffy

Your eyes now crossed ?


daffy 09 Jul 2010, 04:32

Brian...yes i did 'experiment' with prism...i didn't actually want to have cross-eyes so i went with 3 Base In in both eyes. I was naturally -6.00 with some -0.75cyl. It took about a week or two initially to adjust without feeling dizzy as i felt it pulled my eyes out. I then liked the feeling. That feeling went away so i did 6 Base In.

It wasn't too long that I got used to them...but the thing was that after about 3 or 4 days, i noticed that the reverse happened...I really needed to wear Base In to feel like i can see comfortably. So I was wearing the 3Base in mostly then only on odd occasions wore the 6base in.

I then changed my mind and wanted to not wear them any more. BUt i couldn't do without. I went to the eyedoc and explained what i did. He done his usual tests and i was really prescribed the 3 base in.

I actually regret doing it because i became dependant on them. I can;t wear contact either. I've been posting here a couple times detering people from experimenting with prisms.


Brian 08 Jul 2010, 08:05

Daffy, That is interesting about your sister-in-law. I know awhile back you talked about getting prisms in your glasses. What is your current prescription and prism correction? I got prisms in my glasses for the 1st time this past March that are 2BI in each eye.


Soundmanpt 08 Jul 2010, 07:12

daffy

I am beginning to think there is no normal anymore for vision needs. I have come across 2 people in the last month both in there early 30's that were just prescribed their first glasses and both have minus lenses mainly needed for driving. At the same time in the last 2 years I have more young people needing reading glasses than in the past. I think it has something to do with so many small hand held devices in use these days.


daffy 08 Jul 2010, 07:00

just a question...is it normal for a 36 year old to suddenly need glasses for myopia? My sister in law suprized me today when she turned up at an event with me wearing glasses. I asked her the Rx and it was -1 with -0.5cyl on left and -0.5 -0.5cyl on the right. She used to brag that she was the only one in ther family that didn't need glasses. She went every year for a check up. I would have expected plus glasses at this age not -1!


Astra 08 Jul 2010, 05:08

Questioner,

I would like to know why you don't want to have the sensitivity. Being sensitive to straight line must be good I assume.

I can't do that at all.


Soundmanpt 07 Jul 2010, 22:35

Heather

If it bothers you enough then you may want to go back sooner. Holding out will not do any damage to your eye.


ehpc 07 Jul 2010, 21:52

You're cool, Heather...............:) Pete


Heather 07 Jul 2010, 20:50

One more thing: As some of you may remember I got a new prescription of -4.25 (right) and -5.00(left) about two months ago. While I can generally see well with these glasses, I noticed that my vision in the right eye (the -4.25 eye) does not seem to be perfect. If I squint, that makes the vision slightly better. Also, if I look through my left -5 lens with my right eye, my vision is really crisp and clear. So I guess I will probably get a slight increase on the right side in my next eye exam ... frustrating! I am now wondering whether I should wait until my next eye test is due or go back to the optician sooner than that. Not that I am keen to get an increase, quite the opposite, but I am concerned that the eye could further weaken if I don't put the proper lens in front of it.


Heather 07 Jul 2010, 20:08

Soundmanpt - Tennis is okay with the new glasses. Not great but much better than with my old glasses. The thing is that when I had a weak Rx I was able to wear contact lenses so I never had to wear glasses for tennis.


Cactus jack 04 Jul 2010, 10:52

Questioner,

If non-straight, non-plumb lines bother you and your background and training demand perfection, very high Rx glasses have lots of distortion problems, will probably drive you nuts, and the fundamental problem will still exist. High minus glasses are famous for "barrel" edge distortion and chromatic distortion and high plus glasses have that plus extremely narrow fields of view, similar to binoculars. After a while your brain can compensate for the glasses distortion, but the corners will still not be square.

I strongly suspect that as you said, your older home has settled and it probably does have a lot of non plumb and non square corners. I think you really have only a couple of choices:

1. Learn the Prayer of Serenity and repeat it frequently:

"God, grant me the serenity

To accept the things I cannot change;

Courage to change the things I can;

And wisdom to know the difference"

2. Sell the house and build one you like - maybe somewhere warmer in winter - on a slab foundation where there is extremely stable soil. I live in Houston and even slabs have problems here.

3. Speaking as a bit of a perfectionist myself, I don't think a "shrink" is the answer unless your wallet is in extremely good shape. The money would be better spent fixing the problems if the fix is worth it. There is not much wrong with perfection, as long as you know when good enough is good enough and tilting at windmills is a waste of time.

4. I can give you some free advise that a doctor friend gave me one time. When I complained that every time I did some particular thing it caused pain. His response was the surgical fix is hardly worth the risk and money. His suggestion was to not do the thing that caused the pain. It worked.

C.


Questioner 04 Jul 2010, 08:04

In answer to your questions: I live in New England (USA). I am a retired mechanical engineer who does a lot of carpentry on my own house.

My ability to discern deviations from straight is a blessing when it comes to building things to a high standard, but a curse when dealing with an older building where nothing is straight, plumb or level. I get too caught up with getting it "right". If I didn't immediately see when a line is "off" maybe I could gloss over it - and finish my building projects.

One could reasonably argue that what I need is a psychologist not special glasses...

My question arose when I put on my wife's glasses and noticed that horizontal lines appear to be curved when not looking straight at them or when moving my head (of course, everything was blurred as her glasses are much stronger than mine).

I understand that vision is a partnership of brain and optics, with the brain taking a controlling role, so I would expect that my brain would adapt to any optically induced distortion. But would that adaptation take over instantaneously whenever I put on the glasses? Or could I enjoy a few hours of distortion each time?

I suppose one way to answer that question would be to find out how the perception of straight changes for someone very nearsighted who alternates between glasses and contacts (which I assume have not distortion).


Cactus Jack 03 Jul 2010, 19:52

Questioner,

I believe that you need to approach the problem analytically. You have presented a very complex issue potentially involving astigmatism, optics, eye muscle imbalance, balance sensors and even the visual cortex in the brain. Glasses and or contact lenses may not be the answer to your situation, though it is possible that you may need some prism correction in your glasses or even some eye muscle surgery.

The brain is easily fooled by intentional or unintentional optical illusions. Vision actually occurs in the brain. The eyes are merely biological cameras and the eye - brain combination is extremely sensitive to small details.

You have enough astigmatism that without your glasses, you brain is presented with slightly distorted images. Normally, when presented with slightly blurry or distorted images, the brain will soon learn to correct the images so that true perspective exists. You brain should have been able to adjust to any distortion with or without your glasses by now. However, there are some optical illusions that are so clever that it does not matter how long you look at them, they still fool you.

It is possible that you have some eye muscle problems. Each eye has 6 muscles that control the position of the eyes. There are two pairs of muscles for left-right and up-down, but also there is a pair of muscles called oblique that can move the eyes at an angle. Certain combinations of muscle action can also cause the eyes to rotate slightly which can present unusual images to the brain.

You should also consider that the semi-circular canals in your ears, which are your head position sensors, also play a role in what you see because their input is also available to the visual cortex and the eye positioning control system.

Have you had any dizziness or balance problems?

I can give you a few personal examples. When got my first glasses at 14, I trouble for a day with ceiling corners of rooms not looking square. After that everything has looked normal even with many Rx changes, cataract surgery, and wearing prism glasses. Years later, when flat panel monitors were introduced, my reaction and that of several others were that the monitors were concave, not flat. And then we realized that we had been looking at spherical faced monitors for years and out brains had made them look flat. When presented with a flat image on the monitor, our brains tried to correct it, they looked concave for a few hours and then started looking flat. Curiously, spherical faced monitors still looked flat so the brain recognized the difference and was able to compensate instantly even with flat and spherical monitors side by side.

I would suggest that the first step is to verify that your house is in fact not square, level and plumb. This should be easy to do with a laser level, plumb bob, and carpenters square. To check floor level over several rooms use a water level with a long water tube. That is the tool that foundation repair people use to check for foundation problems.

It is possible that for some reason your brain is unable to compensate or adjust quickly for distorted images. It could be a blessing or a curse depending on your visual needs. May I ask your occupation, age, and where you live? Also, do you have any problems with the appearance of the inside or outside of other structures?

C.


questioner 03 Jul 2010, 18:59

I need a way to become less sensitive deviations from straight, plumb or level, and it has occurred to me that I might be able to do this by wearing glasses, perhaps over contacts, that would result in clear vision, but enough distortion that it would be harder to see if a line is straight or not.

I have reasonably good vision (prescription: Left plano, cyl-1.25 axis 88 ad 2.0; and R plano, cyl -1.0 axis 99 add 2.0) and with or without glasses I have a fine eye for deviations from straight.

My wife, about -6 both eyes , can't relate to my complaints that the walls and floors in our house are poorly constructed as she simply can't see what I am noticing without taking a very close look. I am frustrated by not being able to ignore what I see.

My question is: is there a glasses prescription, perhaps over contacts, that would make it harder for me to tell when a line isn't true and so make it easier for me live with my surroundings and be less picky when it comes to construction projects?


Soundmanpt 27 Jun 2010, 09:55

Heather - It's been a while since your last post. How are you doing with tennis play these days? Has the new lighter glasses helped? Maybe with the use of a sweat band as well, should help some.Were you able to find that anti-fog cleaner? The problem with needing glasses and playing tennis must have started with your first rx? Even with the mildest of scripts your vision needs to be not worse than 20/25 uncorrected to see the ball off your opponents racket.


 26 Jun 2010, 19:32

I'm so crosseyed, I can see out of my nose.


Cactus Jack 23 May 2010, 08:50

Brian-16,

The reason I asked you to contact me privately at cactusjack1928@hotmail.com is that your question requires a somewhat lengthy and complex answer that is hard to do here. However, if you want me to answer here I will try to make the answer as concise and complete as possible.

The short answer to your question is: With the information I remember about your Rx, astigmatism MAY be a small part of your acuity problem.

I suspect that other, more dominant, factors such as high sphere, prism, eyeball elongation, retinal condition and retinal stress may be lager factors.

In my own situation, with a low minus Rx, the required introduction of significant prism (>10 diopters BO) in each eye) caused apparent over correction that I could not deal with because of lack of accommodation. The optometrist and the glasses maker could not explain the source of the problem because a another refraction and a check of the Rx in the glasses revealed that both were correct. I wound up finding a "work around" to the problem by wearing a supplemental +1 lens (contact or clip-on) with the glasses. With the supplemental +1 lens I have very near 20/20 vision with 15/15 BO to the amazement of both the optometrist and the optician (glasses maker). I still do not know the exact cause, but I have several suspects in mind. My vision is so good with +1 contacts and the glasses, that I haven't bothered to pin down the exact cause or combination of causes.

I had hoped that with your high myopia, you might be willing to help explore some possible causes, isolate them, and possibly even improve your vision with your glasses. I am very suspicious that the combination of myopic eyeball elongation and the eye socket shape press inward on the back of the eyeball as prism is introduced. Pressing inward on the back of the eyeball causes the length of the eyeball to be reduced slightly which in turn changes the sphere Rx from the refracted Rx which is generally done with the eye pointed straight ahead looking through the optical center of the lens in the phoropter or trial lens frame. I also think that incorrect optical center placement because of the prism is a factor and may cause an apparent change in cylinder correction and sphere power.

Could you provide your current Rx to refresh my memory?

C.


ehpc 20 May 2010, 18:26

Spot on, Vicki :) Pete


Heather 20 May 2010, 14:46

One of my problems with sports is that I tend to sweat more than other people so even if the glasses don't slide down my nose or if I use a strap, the lenses tend to steam up or sweat keeps dropping on the lenses, both of which doesn't necessarily improve my vision :)! However, even with that my vision is still better than without glasses. So some types of sports where I sweat a lot are just a big struggle. I haven't done any sports with the new glasses yet though. We'll see.


Vicki 20 May 2010, 13:59

Have any of you ladies ever worn your glasses during sex? I love to keep mine on while in bed. Not only can I see what is happening, I get to rip them off my face just as I am about to orgasm. Plus, sometimes my man will spray all over them so I can lick the lenses. You should try it sometime if you haven't already!


Melyssa 20 May 2010, 12:50

Heather,

You can try using a strap to hold your glasses in place when you're doing something physically strenuous. It's always worked well for me.


Aubrac 20 May 2010, 02:43

Heather

I play tennis and run/jog a lot often wearing glasses. They are rimless with non-hinged bendy arms and thin lenses and are very light in a -5.00 prescription.

They never slip and if you get the slightly larger lenses give a very good field of vision.

Suggest you try these for sports and then wont find any 'down the nose' slipping problems.


ehpc 19 May 2010, 17:47

The seaweed looks very blurred :)


Heather 19 May 2010, 17:00

ehpc - If you swim without glasses at -7.00 you must see about as much (or as little!) above water as below water I would imagine.


ehpc 19 May 2010, 16:57

Glasses are the BEST!!! :) I seaswim a lot at around minus seven.However, that really isn't a problem.


Heather 19 May 2010, 15:51

And - Your girlfrient is quite lucky. At -7.50 contacts are certainly a lot more comfortable than thick glasses. Unfortunately, my eyes don't tolerate contacts any more so I am stuck with glasses.

I am not really able to function any more even around the house without glasses (except for very simple tasks). Sports has become somewhat difficult because you tend to sweat quite a lot and then glasses slide down the nose and steam up. Playing tennis, which I like a lot, has become a major struggle for me with the glasses but it is impossible for me to see the ball without correction.


And 19 May 2010, 15:41

Heather, my gf is fortunate that she can tolerate contacts really well as her rx in contacts is -7.5.

Can you still manage around the house bare-eyed ? I know folk with strong prescriptions have commented on here before about how they still manage to go swimming and play sport so don't let it stop you.


Heather 19 May 2010, 15:06

And - I think there is quite a big difference between -4.00 and -5.00. At -4.00 you can still make out a few large items in the distance without correction but at -5.00 everything is a total blur. One of the problems is to get a haircut. When I wore contact lenses this was no problem of course. However, as I can only wear glasses now, I have to take them off during the haircut and then cannot really see my face or my hair although it is only about 1.5m away in the mirrot. Every time the hairdresser asks me a question how he should do the hair, I have to put on my glasses first to see what he has done so far. This can be quite an ordeal if he keeps asking questions.

I felt that I became quite dependent on glasses once my prescription was about -3.50 although even then I often did not wear my glasses at home for housework because I was still able to make out things roughly. Now, this is impossible. Even after taking a shower, the first thing I do is put on my glasses again. I also go for Yoga classes from time to time which is quite difficult for me with the glasses. On the one hand I have to wear them to see but on the other hand if you sweat a lot and have to do gymnastics, then they slide down your nose and you are barely able to keep them on. Therefore, I have to put them on and off all the time which is quite a hassle and sometimes almost defeats the purpose of Yoga being relaxing. That's qhy sometimes I keep thinking that maybe as someone who has to wear strong glasses you have to chosse hobbies that are "glasses-friendly"!


And 19 May 2010, 14:42

Heather, do you think there's much difference between -4 and -5. When did you start to feel dependent on your glasses ?


Heather 19 May 2010, 14:32

I was corrected down to 20/20 but I am sure in a year's time we'll start at 20/40 or 20/60 again. I guess that is just my dilemma. -5.00 feels really strong now but I have to enjoy my time with only -5.00 until -6.00 or even more will come. This is quite frightening in a way. I already have 1.74 index lenses but who knows what's next!


Cactus Jack 19 May 2010, 12:14

Clare,

Unfortunately, no. 6/7.5 is about the same as 20/25.

C.


Phil 19 May 2010, 11:38

Yes Jennifer, I am! Despite the reduction in my rx I've become entirely dependent on glasses except for computer and reading.


Clare 19 May 2010, 11:21

On the correcting 20/20 discussion ... At my last contacts check up it was interesting that though I was a little ponderous about some of the letters on the 20/20 line he just put it down to the -0.50 of astigmatism. He presumably wasn't bothered enough to correct it as I figure I get 20/20 with both eyes. I guess it doesn't mean that I can't be corrected to 20/20 although I did have one prescription that said my corrected acuity was 6/7.5, is that better than 6/6 - I haven't a clue!


Dee 19 May 2010, 10:31

Like lenses

Thanks for explaining what cut in was. I have seen the term on the site before and did not know what it meant. Stated another way, I guess I have lots of cut in. Out of couriosity before I posted this, (and I had to buy a metric ruler) but my ear tips appear 35 mm in viewed through my glasses. On the lense itself, it looks like about 5 mm in from the outside of the lense. (BTW, my husband thought I had lost it while I tried this in the mirror.)

I see 20/20 corrected and at my last eye doc appointment even made out 2 or 3 things on the next line I think, by luck and I had a good nights sleep the night before. My eye doc told me I should be happy as some myopes with a strong a prescription as mine cannot be fully corrected. I have no idea if that's right or wrong. I do know if I'm really tired things don't seem to look as sharp.


Jennifer 19 May 2010, 08:51

Well Phil, lets hope you are now wearing your glasses full time???


Phil 19 May 2010, 07:50

With those nice frames and new thin lenses you can now just sit back and enjoy the inevitable stream of compliments!


Heather 19 May 2010, 04:46

Phil - I hope it will stabilise soon. I can definitely feel that the RX is "real"!!


Phil 19 May 2010, 02:44

Nice choice of frames Heather. Don't worry about your rx: it's just strong enough to be "real" but not distorting. I had some increases in my minus rx in my late 30s. But then things stabilised. Last time my rx actually dropped from -4 to -3.25 (though I think somewhere in between would be right). The optician said that that was not unusual as one entered one's 50s. The next challenge for you will be the onset of presbyopia and varifocals!!


Heather 19 May 2010, 02:35

I went back to the optician first thing this morning and decided to get a new frame and new lenses. I ended up getting this frame

http://www.vision2you.co.uk/store/paul-smith-glasses/paul-smith/ps1017

It is very different from the one I had previously. Somewhat smaller and much lighter. I had them put in 1.74 index lenses (as my insurance is going to pay for that). I got the lenses put into the frame within immediately and I am already wearing them now. They are PHANTASTIC!!!! Even the -5.00 left lens is really thin and they are very light compared to what I experienced before. The lenses feel really strong and intense though. After having worn them for an hour I'll probably feel the need to take a break until I get used to them.

I am so glad now!


Heather 19 May 2010, 00:48

Like Lenses - Why do wear something stronger than you need for distance rather than wearing your actual prescription for distance vision and then wear a slightly weaker prescription for reading?


Like Lenses 18 May 2010, 22:21

Dee

With your prescription there is no getting away from the facial distortion ( Cut in ) unless you would get myodiscs.

I like the cut in,and flat front surfaces of glasses like yours.

Do you have 20/20 with your glasses on?


Like Lenses 18 May 2010, 22:14

Heather

At 36 with the amount of recent increase you need to hold reading material as close as possible,and perhaps get a pair of online glasses with -.50 more power,and wear these for most things except reading.

I think that you need to do these things to stave off your next prescription from becoming bifocals.

My actual prescription is -3.50 in each eye,but I wear -4.50 for everything but reading. I can read with the -4.50's but not real comfortable,unless my eyes are tired. My distance vision with them is 20/10.


DS 18 May 2010, 21:42

Heather,

Go for some 1.61 lenses. They're thinner than poly and have better optical properties. At your prescription, going higher index has diminishing returns.


ehpc 18 May 2010, 20:35

To Heather - I'm real sorry you don't like your brilliant glasses.I wonder how the eye test went.


ehpc 18 May 2010, 20:32

Heather - the frames are absolutely great :) Couldn't do better :)And with thick lenses :)


Dee 18 May 2010, 17:04

I was so excited to get smaller glasses with thinner high index lenses and especially to minimize the front view where it makes my ears look squished in. At -12 I was so happy to see how thin my lenses were but was then disappointed that my facial distortion was still there. The glasses person (I appologize, they must have a title) explained that light still needed to get back to my deformed eyes. I have adjusted to it now.


Heather 18 May 2010, 12:44

Brian - The stronger lens (-4.50) is about 6-7mm (about 1/4 inch) thick. You are right that this cannot be seen from the side since the frame hides the lens from the side but you can see the thickness well from the front. Also, the lenses are quite heavy because of the thickness. However, given that I might get a new prescription again next year, maybe I should not spend an extraordinary amount of money now and just stick to the Polycarbonate lenses even for the new prescription, although right now I cannot yet get used to the thought of wearing even thicker (and heavier) lenses. I need to give this some thought.


Brian 18 May 2010, 12:08

Heather, How thick are your current lenses with that frame? I would think that frame would do a pretty good job hiding the thickness of the lenses and no one who is looking at them would even be able to tell they are very strong due to the way the frame would likely disguise the lense thickness. Even with that current frame, I still think you'll be ok with polycarbonate lenses.


Clare 18 May 2010, 11:24

Heather - mine are 1.6 index


Heather 18 May 2010, 10:25

Brian - I am 36 already. That's why I am quite surprised that my prescription keeps increasing. I just got new frames last year but only realised afterwards that I should have bought smaller frames. This is the frame I have

http://www.smartbuyglasses.co.uk/designer-eyeglasses/Emporio-Armani/Emporio-Armani-EA-9465-MH9-24667.html

Actually it's size 53 so I was wrong earlier. So the combination of frames and thick lenses is quite heavy but since the frames are still quite new I am hesitant to get new ones.


Brian 18 May 2010, 09:56

Heather, How old are you? Usually when you get to you late 20's and early 30's your prescription will generally start to stabalize. My prescription is -6.00 and -5.25 and I even have a 2D Base-In Prism correction in my glasses and have polycarbonate lenses in my glasses and the lenses in my glasses aren't that thick at all. I did get a smaller frame which really does cut down on the thickness. So that would be my advice, just get a smaller frame with the polycarbonate lenses and you should be in good shape.


Heather 18 May 2010, 08:28

I just came back from my eye exam. As I had almost anticipated, there has been another increase although luckily not a really big one. Basically, I have now gone from -4.00 (right) / -4.50 (left) to -4.25 (right) / -5.00 (left).

What really annoys me though (apart from another increase in the power) is that the thinner lenses are much more expensive than I had thought, so I decided to do nothing right now and check with my insurance first how much they are going to pay.

I would be okay paying a lot for thinner lenses if I knew my prescription remained stable now but if there is another increase in a year I have to change the lenses again. This is really frustrating!


Heather 18 May 2010, 05:25

I have an appointment for an eye exam today. I am keeping my fingers crossed! I am also planning to have thinner lenses put into my glasses.


Cactus Jack 17 May 2010, 14:56

Brian-16,

Would you please contact me at cactusjack1928@hotmail.com

Thanks,

C.


Melyssa 17 May 2010, 12:58

Heather,

My lenses range from 1/4-inch thick to 1/2-inch thick, depending on frame size of course. And yes, it's the cost ($40 per pair as opposed to possibly hundreds) that keeps me in thick lenses.


Heather 17 May 2010, 12:52

Melyssa - I guess you are right. However, your prescription in regular plastic must be extremely thick. Do you get regular plastic for cost reasons or for other reasons?


Melyssa 17 May 2010, 12:43

Heather,

Be thankful you do not have to deal with glass lenses, as I did in the 1960s and early 1970s. Even with my -9.00 RX, I still use regular plastic CR39 lenses in all of my frames, and a lot of them are larger than your size 52 glasses. But then, I've had plenty of decades to get used to the thickness. ;)


Heather 17 May 2010, 12:03

I think if my prescription is still -4.00 / -4.50 I might get 1.67 lenses but if it has increased to -5.00 or more in at least one eye, I might even go for 1.74 lenses. That should do the trick!


Heather 17 May 2010, 11:48

Clare - The optician recommended the Polycarbonate lenses which he said were thinner than regular plastic lenses. I guess this is true but they are still relatively thick for my prescription. What type of lenses do you have for a -3 prescription? I am wondering which type of lens I should go for? It will of course also depend on whether my prescription has remained constant or whether it has increased again.


Clare 17 May 2010, 11:36

Heather - I'm surprised your optician didn't recommend thinner lenses, even with my Rx, my optician said that above -3 there's no question that they're the best bet.


Brian-16 17 May 2010, 10:38

Cactus Jack- I too have astigmatism in both eyes and was wondering if this is why I do not have 20/20. I should be getting an exam early this summer.


ehpc 17 May 2010, 08:57

Large frames are just the best, Heather :) Black rectangular plastic frames with wide sides? :)


Cactus Jack 17 May 2010, 05:50

Astra,

Yes, I have different lenses for distance, intermediate, and close. They are called tri-focals. The are very handy and work very well. I wore tri-focals before the surgery so there was no problem getting used to them. I also have a pair of single vision reading glasses that I wear when I am doing a lot of reading (in bed in particular). I also opted for Monovision. The power of my IOLs were selected to give close to 20/20 for distance in one eye and the other eye is slightly nearsighted (-1.50) for closer work. My vision without glasses is not perfect because of some astigmatism, but I can function pretty well (including reading labels on medicine bottles) without them, if I have to get up at night. I could have opted for multi-focal IOLs, but at the time (2001) they were not very good and I like being able to see well. Most opthalmologists I have talked to will not fit multi-focal IOLs in people who like or need really sharp vision. Curiously, the IOLs are about 6% more efficient in light transmission than natural lenses which means that I can see very well at night, but very bright days require sunglasses for comfort.

C.


Heather 17 May 2010, 05:48

I made the mistake last time that the frames I chose are for relatively large lenses (size 52) which increases the outer thickness of the lenses. Moreover, I selected Polycarbonate lenses which are supposed to be thinner than regular plastic lenses but they are still fairly thick. I think I will probably get the lenses replaced with thinner ones. That should make wearing the glasses more comfortable. However, since my last eye test is already almost a year ago, I might as well go for a new test before putting in the thinner lenses. I just hope that my prescription did not increase again because that might undo the effect of the thinner lens type.


Astra 16 May 2010, 23:06

Cactus Jack,

Since you have practically no accommodation, does that mean you need different rx for reading and distance?


ehpc 16 May 2010, 18:06

Heather - I reckon you are greatly into the self-image I described :)Fabulously healthy, fit, strong, confident, brainy, confident, self-assured.................and projecting the SLIGHEST bit of adorable feminine vulnerabilty by wearing thick glasses :) After all, wouldn't it be lovely to have a strong man around to take you home and look after you if you broke your hot glasses and didn't have another pair on you? :) Hey :) Hey:) And what a great image (and reality) too.................. :) Pete


Cactus Jack 16 May 2010, 15:01

Andrew,

You are very fortunate. To put that in English notation, 6/4 would be the same as 20/13.3 or a little better than 20/15 but not quite 20/10. 6/6 or 20/20 is typical good acuity for the general population, but there are exceptions where some people have a bit better than typical acuity. The examiner probably thought that you were very happy with being able to see 6/4 and saw no reason to "improve" it. There can be more causes than just refractive errors that cause a reduction in visual acuity. including optical quality and clarity of the cornea, crystaline lenses, aqueous humor, and the vitreous humor. On top of all that, the performance of the retina can play a significant role.

Remember, humans really do not have superior eyesight compared to some creatures in the animal kingdom. It has been said that some birds (e.g. eagles, hawks etc" have incredible visual acuity and could theoretically read newsprint at extreme distances and can spot a mouse at over a Km. This is, of course, an example of the evolutionary process in action. The birds with good eyesight got plenty to eat and reproduced. Those with less acuity went hungry and died before they had a chance to pass on their genes.

Fortunately, in humans, superior eyesight is not directly necessary for survival though good corrected or uncorrected eyesight can be very helpful.

There are a few exceptions. Not so much so today, but in WW 2 superior eyesight really helped the survival of fighter pilots. The farther away you could see an enemy aircraft the better chance you had of either engaging him favorably or if you had limited armaments, getting away before he saw you.

May I ask your age?

BTW, I'm 72 and have had my crystaline lenses replaced with IOLs, because of an unusual type of cataract. I can be corrected to 20/15 and make out some letters on the 20/10 line. Not bad for an oldster. Remember, I have NO accommodation so the Rx has to be pretty close to my actual needs.

C.


Andrew 16 May 2010, 13:06

I had my CLs checked yesterday. With the present lenses, I was able to read the 6/4 line (I hope I have got the numbers the right way round). I just wonder what would have happened if the man checking my eyes had decided that 6/6 ought to be good enough for me and reduced the strength of my lenses until that is what I could see...


ehpc 16 May 2010, 12:49

Anyway, although thick minus lenses do have their own appeal, it is hot frames which get me going. Heavy minus does have it's own attraction, but so long as the frames are hot, the tiniest minus (or even plain glass) is fine for me:)


ehpc 16 May 2010, 12:46

Not at all. It isn't the 'dependence' that is attractive. The reverse, again. Wearing glasses is a sign of strong character - OVERCOMING the problem!


Heather 16 May 2010, 11:44

Independent ... except for their dependence on strong glasses ... :)!


ehpc 16 May 2010, 11:40

Finally..........(for the moment:)) it is the fact that glasses make women look so BRAINY that is the turn-on :)Brainy, confident, self-assured and independent :)


ehpc 16 May 2010, 11:37

And in any case, glasses are what overcome the problem!


ehpc 16 May 2010, 11:35

Short sight is indeed most certainly not a disability. Having no legs, as a friend of mine has, is a 'dsiability'.And I can tell you she does extremely well with her life.


ehpc 16 May 2010, 11:31

Not at all, Heather :) The complete reverse:) My philosophy is that if you have perfect health, you have EVERYTHING - EVERYTHING ELSE you can sort out, personal, professional, financial. I just meant it's a rather cool 'image' combination - serious (glasses) and fun (beachwear). Strictly the 'cool image' is what I meant :) Getting pleasure from other people's disabilities is indeed evil, and no-one believes that,and has reason to believe that, more than me. However, short sight is not a 'disability'. Pete


Heather 16 May 2010, 10:17

Melyssa - Yes, usually if they are diligent, they double-check whether you can actually read the same letters with the weaker lenses also. However, I noticed that some opticians don't necessarily want to spend that much time and they will just give you the higher power once you said that this seems to make things clearer. At least for me, a higher power usually "looks better" to me but I think sometimes it just makes things smaller and darker, making it look "nicer" but the additional power may not be strictly necessary.


Melyssa 16 May 2010, 08:44

Heather,

As for sports, I bowl (rather well for someone without a ton of strength), and I can see the pins (and more importantly, the arrows). I am fortunate never to have had to wear glasses or goggles while swimming. And I stopped playing softball before I started wearing glasses full time.

As for your 2nd question, usually they start testing me with my current RX, and if I have trouble reading something, they make the test lens stronger. They also give me the old "Which is better, 1 or 2" routine, and sometimes I have to try it a couple of times to make sure things aren't blurrier.


Heather 16 May 2010, 08:37

Melyssa - do you do any sports with the glasses on. If you do, how do you cope? As explained in my previous post, this is my biggest struggle!

On another note: I was wondering, if you have an eye test and the optician gradually increases the minus power, at least within a certain range, doesn't more power almost always make things at least as clear as less power even if you don't necessarily need all that power to see what you have to be able to see? So, in other words, if the optician doesn't thoroughly check whether you are actually able to read the same letters with less power, you end up with more power than you necessarily need. Also, since with more power the letters tend to look blacker, one might confuse this with "better".


Melyssa 16 May 2010, 08:28

Heather,

I certainly hope you've reached your limit as far as your prescription is, as well. As for me, I have no intention of getting that Lasix, as I know of 2 women for whom it has not worked properly, as opposed to 1 woman who is quite happy with hers. And the people I know who had that RK done, now have to wear reading glasses.


Heather 16 May 2010, 08:28

For me by the far the worst part with having to wear these fairly strong glasses all the time, is doing sports. I play tennis frequently but the glasses part is a constant struggle, they keep sliding down the nose and steam up when you sweat and if you use one of these rubber bands or whatever they are called, then they can't slide any more but they steam up even more and sweat constantly drops on the lenses - a nightmare! Probably good to adopt new glasses-friendly hobbies!


Heather 16 May 2010, 08:21

Melyssa - Given that your prescription stabilised at age 36, there is at least some hope for me on that front as I am 36 now! I guess I just have to learn how to cope with things as I think I am not a candidate for surgery either.


Melyssa 16 May 2010, 08:12

Heather,

I was 27 when I had the big jump, and my RX finally stabilized at 36. I have worn glasses since age 8, and with my excessive astigmatism (3), I was never able to wear contacts. Fortunately, I have lots of pretty pairs of glasses to wear.


Heather 16 May 2010, 08:07

Melyssa - How old were you when your prescription stabilised? -9.00 is really strong. I guess it is more or less okay if you are able to wear contacts but being stuck with glasses with such a prescription must be quite something. I am already struggling with the -4 / -4.5.


Melyssa 16 May 2010, 08:01

Heather,

When I was half my current age, my prescription skyrocketed (possibly 2 more diopters to the negative side), and for a couple of weeks after I got my new glasses, the floor always seemed to look very close to me. I told the ophthalmologist about it, and he said it was normal for things to seem a bit off for a little while after getting a much stronger prescription. Fortunately for me, my eyes got used to the new lenses. By the time I reached what is now 2/3 of my age, my RX was up to -9.00, and I deal with it just fine.


Heather 16 May 2010, 08:01

Clare - 16 hours is still pretty good. I guess in theory I could still wear contacts. However, it is a constant struggle. Although my eyes don't become red or anything, they hurt quite a bit and I have to blink all the time to be able to see clearly for some reason. Too much of a hassle. A few years ago, I did not even notice I was wearings contacts. It is strange how things change sometimes.


Clare 16 May 2010, 07:24

Heather - I can understand that. I'm a 99% contacts wearer (the 1% constitutes wearing glasses at home) and am not particularly tolerant of contacts - I can do up to about 16 hours max (although not always), yet friends of mine can go longer. Afraid I'm probably not one to encourage as I'd feel exactly the same!


Heather 16 May 2010, 07:13

Clare - Thanks for your response. I certainly hope that this experience is not indicative of my future prescription but I guess I just have to wait and see! Also, after wearing only contact lenses for many years, my eyes don't tolerate them any more, so I have to wear glasses whatever the prescription is. Even the -4.00 / -4.50 glasses are still quite a nuisance to me (even after having them for about 9 months). It is hard to go suddenly from 100% contact lens wear to wearing glasses full time especially if you have quite a strong prescription and need thick lenses.


Clare 16 May 2010, 07:00

Sorry, I meant that my Rx now is similar to that prescribed a few years ago ... but didn't check the post before hitting send, duh!


Clare 16 May 2010, 06:59

Heather - I had a similar experience a few years ago. I went in to the test with a prescription of -1.50 and -1.75 but came out with one of -2 and -3.50. I was quite upset and came away with contacts of -1.75 and -3. I wasn't at all happy and didn't feel the prescription was right so, like you, went back and came away with a prescription for -2.25 both eyes. Years later my Rx is -2.75 and -3 -0.50 x 140. With the benefit of time it's easy to say that my current Rx isn't so different from the one that I wear now. I'll never know if I just couldn't cope with it then or, coincidentally, just ended up somewhere near it. Whatever, you're right to go back and - yes, other people have similar experiences. Not good.


Heather 16 May 2010, 06:04

It sounds like you are getting some evil pleasure from other people's disabilities ... :-)


ehpc 15 May 2010, 21:14

I bet you looked just GREAT walking around the beach with thick lenses :) Pete


Heather 15 May 2010, 20:44

I am new to this site. I have been wearing glasses for the past 18 years but recently had quite a strange experience in an eye test.

I came to the eye test wearing -3.50 (right) and -4.00 (left) glasses. They then tested me with that prescription but I wasn't able to see all the letters properly so they increased my prescription relatively quickly asking whether I could see better with the additional power which I confirmed. When they had found the right prescription, they added this prescription to trial frames and asked me to walk around the store with the trial frames on and then asked me whether I was able to see well and whether things looked very far away and small or distorted. However, I thought things looked kind of okay. They then removed the trial frames and told me that my prescription had increased to -4.50 -0.75 (right) and -4.75 -0.75 (left). I was quite shocked when I heard about that, especially since I thought I had been able to see relatively well with my old glasses. They then immediately put the new lenses into my existing frames within one hour. Although the lenses were high-index, I thought they were still REALLY thick! I had never thought that I would need such thick lenses. At first the vision was okay (however, somehow really intense) but once I had kept them on for several hours, my eyes hurt badly and my vision was distorted as well. I then called the optician but they said that this was normal given the relatively large prescription increase. So I persisted and even went on holiday for a week taking only these glasses with me. However, besides all my friends making fun of me walking around the beach with really thick lenses, my hurt more and more and I ended up wearing no glasses at all during the last few days of the holidays but it had become unbearable. Once I was home again I went to see another optician at the same store telling her about my problems and she tested my eyes again and found that my new prescription was only -4.00 (right) and -4.50 (left). Quite a differnce from before! So had these lenses put into my old frame immediately and since then things have been a lot better. However, it seems strange to me that made such a large error.


Now sure 21 Apr 2010, 18:10

Thank you, Cactus Jack, and thank you, Antonio, for getting me straightened out.

'Preciate ya.


antonio 18 Apr 2010, 08:19

so what we can learn from Cactus Jack:

yes, if the axis of the minus lens is laying horizontally, it should shrunk an image vertically,so make people smaller or as they were farer away than without any lens.

that seems righter than my first post :-)

best regards, antonio


Cactus Jack 18 Apr 2010, 08:05

Not sure,

You are correct, but what actually happens is that objects stay about the same size vertically (along the axis) and object are shrunk along the horizontal axis because of the minimizing effects of a minus lens. They tend to make people look thinner.

However, you should remember that the job of the minus cylinder correction is to neutralize or cancel out the increased 90 degrees of plus cylinder power in an astigmatic cornea. Uncorrected 90 degree plus cylinder in the cornea will make people look fatter, but the brain can fix that problem. What it can't fix is the two different focus points in the vertical and horizontal axes. It requires an external lens to do that.

C.


antonio 18 Apr 2010, 07:49

yes, if the axis of the lens is horizontally, it should stretch an image vertically,

that makes sense to me,

best regards, antonio


Not sure 18 Apr 2010, 06:37

Hi, folks. Dumb question: With, say, a minus one cylinder at 90 degrees, things through that lens would look stretched vertically, right?

I'm having a hard time getting a straight answer, but I'm sure you guys can help.

Thanks.


soundmanpt 17 Apr 2010, 08:14

Clare

That machine you refer to I must admit I have not seen, but my guess is that it is designed to give the best possible vision correction. When it refracted you to -3.50 most likely you would have been able to see the 20/10 line on the eye chart had you ordered glasses based on that. As we all know doctors only want to correct to 20/20. I have known several opticians that after getting their annual exam have increased their rx by -.50 because they wanted that that extra clearity for themselves.


Clare 16 Apr 2010, 23:27

Hollie - the only interaction was with a human who led people to the testing machine. Interestingly it was also possible to have a full test but they were equally prepared to make up a pair of glasses based on the electronic test result. Given that I once had one of those give me a reading of -3.5 a few years ago at Boots Opticians I have never trusted them, I was really only -2.75 in th end.


Hollie 16 Apr 2010, 12:26

Clare

So there is no contact with a human examiner?? I know the refraction I've had has been a diopter or so above my final prescription before (my most recent eyetest it was almost bang on!) - is over refraction common I wonder?


Clare 03 Apr 2010, 00:08

A couple of years ago I bought some glasses in India where they are very cheap compared to UK prices. There they test remotely too - the customer looks into a machine which produces a ticket like a receipt with the prescription printed on it. Like the early stages of a regular eye exam but that's it. I didn't have the test as I had my prescription with me but I wonder how pleased people who bought glasses based on that refraction might have been?


Cactus Jack 30 Mar 2010, 21:08

Dave,

Your math is correct. Ideally, the check of distance vision should be done with the target object is so far away that the rays of light from the object arrive at the cornea, parallel. For all practical purposes, the light rays from small letters 20 ft or 6 meters away arrive at the cornea so close to parallel, that it doesn't matter. If the target is closer, they light rays are not parallel.

Mirrors can work because they ideally reflect the parallel light rays by the same amount, maintaining their parallel relationship. The snag with the mirrors is that they are probably NOT front surface mirrors (that is what you find in high precision optics and telescopes) because they are very expensive and very fragile. Light being reflected by a back surface mirror must encounter the front surface before being reflected and angular errors can be introduced. Fortunately, the error isn't large, but it can be there and I think you get more accurate result when the chart is really 20 ft or 6 meters away.

As I mentioned in a previous post I was not impressed by the quality of the refraction done with the clever optics and probably very high priced curved mirror. As our UK friends say, "It was too clever by half". I haven't been back to that ECP. The refraction just didn't look right and I didn't bother to get the glasses made.

I have not heard too many complaints about Zenni and very few complaints about Optical 4 Less. If you get a low cost frame, Zenni is so inexpensive you can afford to try them and toss the glasses if you don't like them.

C.

C.


Dave 30 Mar 2010, 18:23

CJ,

Thank you for your detailed answer. I wondered if the mirror distance was less than 20'. The distance for .25D of myopia to kick in is 4m (13+ feet) - is that correct?

I think I will do the online buy next time. I've been thinking of that for cost also. I seem to spend at least $250 per year for lens updates. Seems like I could get glasses and lenses a lot cheaper online.

I've not heard of quality issues with online retailers. Any complaints out there? I have strong astigmatism 1.75, 2.25 so I notice if the cylinder is out by any significant amount.

Dave


Cactus jack 30 Mar 2010, 13:59

Dave,

Ideally, the distance is 20 feet, often reflected by a mirror in small offices. I agree with you that the very best refractions seem to be done with a true direct 20 feet, but that arrangement seems to be rare these days. I have also been refracted with a remotely controlled phropter and what seemed to be a very fancy curved mirror about 5 feet from the phropter. The resulting Rx left a lot to be desired.

Also, optometrists seem to be trained to be stingy with the minus and correct only until the 20/20 line is readable with a little effort. I personally prefer the 20/20 line to be very crisp with some of the letters on the 20/15 line to be easily readable.

It might be worthwhile to tell the examiner that you prefer very sharp vision even if you are slightly over corrected. Prescribing in 0.25 steps does not always result in the best Rx and I have known some ECPs to prescribe in 0.125 steps, but that is very rare.

If that doesn't work, just order your glasses online with -0.25 more than prescribed.

Remember, you have to live with the results.

C.


question for Jack 30 Mar 2010, 10:41

Jack,

What distance do optometrists correct for in their office.... small room, eye chart reflected thru a mirror?

The reason I ask is that I always get left a little under corrected for myopia. I have a -0.5 camera diopter and when I look thru it at infinity (and my glasses too) it is always clearer with than without.

Any ideas?

Thanks,

Dave


Danbert 21 Mar 2010, 00:32

[no name], that would require a lens with a virtually infinite focal length and would also require a transparent eyelid...

High myopia in individuals in the order of -50 D has apparently been documented. Combined with excellent accommodation such a person might be able to focus to around 1.5cm. That's still a far cry from the distance of the eyelid to the eye.


 20 Mar 2010, 18:38

I'm so nearsighted I can read the eye chart inside my eyelids perfectly.

It says D E F P O T E.

Is there any hope for me?


dave 20 Mar 2010, 17:15

I captured the refracting tutorials. If anyone wants them email me for the link.

eyescene_dave(at)yahoo.com


guest 17 Mar 2010, 00:30

looks like about -8.5 in her right eye with -0.75 cyl

left eye is unreadable but in the -9's with equal cyl.


antonio-o 16 Mar 2010, 16:08

what prescription does it show ?

just curious,

best regards, antonio


guest 16 Mar 2010, 13:52

I like being able to read the prescription for the optometrist photos like this on flickr: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/4270491065_322083ffb0_b.jpg


Dave 05 Mar 2010, 10:57

@Cactus Jack

This tutorial helped me understand what happened in my last eye exam. My left eye took quite a jump, sphere increased -0.25 and cylinder by -0.50

Normally my eyes are quite stable, changing by .25 every few years. This time I was seeing double images with the left eye especially at night looking at street signs.

Near the end of the refracting process (presumably step 4) he asked which was clearer. I think I unexpectantly chose the higher minus. He asked me all kinds of questions, why does it look clearer? Is it actually clearer, or just darker. I said it's smaller but clearer. I was looking at a small letter p and said that the round part looks a little better filled in.

I think he was trying to hold back the minus power and my answer convinced him to go with it. I must have been on the borderline for needing the next increment.

@Danbert

Are you thinking in terms of trying to fake your rx higher than necessary? I think people are able to do this. I have so little accomdation left I wouldn't function well with an exaggerated minus.


Danbert 04 Mar 2010, 02:48

I mucked up my last post. Sorry about that.

The 2nd sentence should read 'Does anyone know if this is the standard...'

The 3rd sentence should read 'To me, it seems that this would allow emmetropic and myopic people...'


Danbert 04 Mar 2010, 02:46

I watched the whole thing. Pretty simple to follow.

Does anyone know if this the standard followed more or less everywhere?

To me, it seems that this would allow emmetropic to perhaps consciously select the text requiring more accommodation for a predetermined number of cycles to yield a stronger prescription...

Of course, one would probably need to predetermine which line of the eye chart they are able to read to add some legitimacy.

In practice it may not be so easy though... comments, anyone?


Cactus Jack 03 Mar 2010, 19:39

Dave,

That is a very educational link. There are many members who do not understand what happens and what the examiner is looking for during an exam and the tutorial is very helpful. I wonder if there is a tutorial on the next steps of the examination with both eyes working together and near point refraction.

I checked briefly, but didn't find anthing.

Good job!

/c.


Dave 01 Mar 2010, 20:53

A refracting tutorial (for anyone who would like to know what the knobs and twidly bits do).

http://www.medrounds.org/refract/menu.htm


John S 22 Jan 2010, 13:56

You pretty much the same amount of sphere and astigmatism correction. They kind of cancel each other out. Your vision isn't very bad. I would say your eyes probably will feel better when you wear them.

The + numbers in your rx are the cylinder correction, the - is the sphere. Your astig is considered with the rule, which is more common, and you are very slightly nearsighted. How old are you?

I would tell people you were having headaches. That should cover it.


Adam 22 Jan 2010, 13:30

Its R= -0.75 +0.75 86 L=-0.75 +0.50 100


John S 22 Jan 2010, 13:25

Adam, please post your rx. It might help us figure out some helpful hints to tell your friends.


Adam 22 Jan 2010, 13:10

Hello I've just been prescribed glasses for the first time, am abit surprised as hadnt noticed that I had been having any vision problems! Was just wondering if anybody had any stories on how they first found out they needed glasses, and also the best way to let friends and family know.


Puffin 24 Oct 2009, 12:31

Astra, re your friend Kate, what often happens with new, youngish myopes (I think you said that was what she was) is that before they get their first myopia correction, their accomodative eye muscles are very good (actually, more good than they ought to be) at relaxing for a given visual distance and thus they automatically get a kind of free correction (but not all of it) thanks to being young and having a generally more flexible visual system.

This means when they walk in off the street and get their first prescription, they can see down to say 20/80 but get an RX that would correct someone apparently able to see only say 20/200 or more. This is because the optician knows there is more myopia there than is apparent, and it is being masked by the eye's ability to relax.

Why the apparent overcorrection? Well - firstly it's not really overcorrection, and also in later years payback will come because the eye muscles are still strong enough to accomodate without bifocals.

It is not unknown for people of Kate's age to see 20/100 and get prescribed -5 of correction. Also - when she takes off her glasses, is there a few seconds when everything is really blurred, then it reverts to something like the state before she got glasses? If so, her eyes are starting to become accustomed to the correction - but not wholly.


Astra 24 Oct 2009, 11:42

Due to my recent difficulties on reading text, I've consulted an eye doctor for further eye check.

He told me there are no pathologic eye problems detected, but my visual acuity for reading is inadequate, which was 0.2. Distance acuity is 20/30 with the best correction, which is worse than 20/20 last time. My distance acuity without is 20/100.

That means I can't read text smaller than 14 pt without the aid of magnifying tools, even at reading distance, with the reading add.


Astra 24 Oct 2009, 11:18

Puffin, regarding the age of Kate. She was 20.


Astra 24 Oct 2009, 11:17

Puffin, I have mentioned some of the phenomenon observed for Kate (my friend) on the thread "Going without glasses".

Of course there are more observation, they seem to be more relevant to this thread.

About some tricks mentiioned on "Going without glasses" thread. It was easy, close the indoor lighting at night, and I ask Kate to describe the shape of the slit (which is thin, rectangular). There we have my own old glasses (no, I wasn't wearing them) with a prescription of -2.0. If she could see past the -2.0, then she probably got over-correction. But with -2.0 on, Kate told me it was almost like no change from without, still blurry. I have a -2.5, and let Kate to try them on, and this time she told me it is somewhat better, but still unable to see the slit properly.

Kate has to use her -3.5 to see properly. Everything from 0 to -2.5 doesn't really help much, since her visual acuity without was 20/80; with -2.5 correction, she probably got 20/40.


Astra 24 Oct 2009, 11:05

Puffin, -3.5 was my friend's first prescription, and she does not seem to wear her glasses full-time except for the first 2 weeks or so...


Angie 11 Oct 2009, 20:32

Latte,

I don't think it will be a marked difference in thickness. I have a plus prescription in one lens, and along with the base out, the edge thickness is barely noticeable. Keep us posted on how things turn out, and best of luck.


turely 10 Oct 2009, 09:18

Hi Latte,

I have 3 base out prism in ecah lens and 1.5 base down in the one and have them in high index my prescrition is -4 ish and they are hardly noticable, I'm sure you will like them


truely 10 Oct 2009, 09:16

test


latte 10 Oct 2009, 08:08

Hi Angie thanks for this info my script is -8.75 and -9.00 with some astig, and add of 2, I normally wear a 1.67 high index lens


Angie 10 Oct 2009, 07:50

Latte,

The 3 base out means that the thickness will be at the outer edge, by the temple. I have glasses with 4 base out, and wear those when I have a lot of files to read at work, or a great new book that will lead to hours of reading. I don't think the thickness at the edge will be very noticeable, but that may also depend on your prescription, on top of the prism. Are you near or farsighted?


latte 10 Oct 2009, 06:56

Hi not sure if this is the right thread to use. I have just been prescribed prism in my lenses, it will be a 3 base out. I however forgot to ask him if it will make my lenses thicker and for base out prism where will the thickness of the lens be? can anyone help me until I get to chat to my optom on Monday?


Danbert 09 Oct 2009, 09:56

@Like Lenses: Do you manage to induce much with only -1.00 overcorrection?


Like Lenses 08 Oct 2009, 19:08

Obsessed

You are correct. In my case my uncorrected vision is 20/450 in each eye, and I can see 20/20 with my prescribed -3.50 glasses, but I wear a pair of overcorrected -4.50 to induce myopia, and have 20/10 with them.


Obsessed 05 Oct 2009, 18:24

Astra, the vision acuity only partly depends on the refractive power of the eye. All parts of your vision analyzer (i.e. cornea, pupil, lens, length of eyeball, retina, brain etc) directly affect your visual acuity.

There can be people with identical RX's and very (!) different levels of vis. acuity.

Some people with -10 can see better bare-eyed than those with -5.


Puffin 05 Oct 2009, 16:20

Astra, how old is your friend and how long has she been wearing her 3.5s? Are they her first prescription? And does she wear them fulltime as probably she ought?


Astra 05 Oct 2009, 01:45

Reading one of my old post on this thread got me amused now. On that post, I've try to imply there could be direct relationship between prescriptions and visual acuity.

Throughout this year I got really convinced that prescription does not have "linear relationship" with visual acuity. Prescription and visual acuity are entirely different things, even though stronger prescription would likely to cause lower visual acuity because of the limited ability to accommodate with the off-focused image.

I was amazed when I saw one of my friend with a prescription of about -3.50 going bare eyed because she lost her glasses. I got curious and asked her about her visual acuity on her last eye test, and she told me it was 20/80.

20/80 sounds more like the expected acuity for an uncorrected -1.5 to -2.0 , I wonder how is that possible...


happy 11 Jul 2009, 10:02

What has happened to this thread?? Everyone seems very quiet!


Anna 01 Jul 2009, 13:25

Since I posted to this website a week ago I've been blocked. Is there a reason for this? Please unblock me!


happy 01 Jul 2009, 10:21

I am 38, and my last script a year ago was R -6.5, and L -7.25 cyl -0.25...I knew I wasn't seeing as well as I could, but the size of the change has surprised me!


pippo 01 Jul 2009, 10:11

dear happy,

what's your age?

what's your previous rx?


happy 01 Jul 2009, 10:02

I have just posted to the induced myopia thread - but perhaps my question is more relevant to this forum. I have had a relatively stable prescription of about -4 for about 10 years until the last 3 years when my myopia has incresed - reconfirmed today by a further increase in my prescription to R -7.75 cly -0.25 and L -8.25. I wondered if anyone could tell me why I have started to increase my myopia, and if it is likely to continue at this rate?


Aubrac 01 Jul 2009, 02:51

guest

Maybe one reason the optometrist wants your friend to visit in only a year is to check other issues regarding eye health. At my last eye test, the pressure in one eye was borderline on the limit and so I too was asked to come back in one year rather than two.

Distance prescription can decrease with age but there is no rule to this, my sphere went up -0.25 in one eye, the first change for twelve years! Also my add at +2.00 remained the same as its been for six years.

The bottom line of your friends prescription is that with her right eye she will only have +0.25 of plus to help her reading, and only +1.00 in the left eye. It is a negligible amount in the right eye and will make hardly any difference as it almost like not wearing glasses, and for the left it is the lowest amount that OTC readers can be purchased with.

If she can read well with just her right eye than the prescription may be sufficient, although on the scale of things at age 48 it is on the low side. Your optometrist sounds well qualified but should be open to hear concerns that the prescription may not fulfil her reading needs. He should have done the test for reading and computer acuity and possibly your friend could ask if with the trial lenses she can read a book or paper, and also look at a computer screen.


guest 30 Jun 2009, 08:41

Another question? How much if any does the added cylinder make? Since it is such a small amount, I'm wondering if even that will be helpful with her near vision? Isin't it much more common for people nearing the age of 50 to see a decrease in their myopia and an added need for correction for reading? I wonder what the optometrist meant when he told her that now that her correction for distance isin't so"off" this will make her overall vision much improved, at all distances? My friend told me that he acted as though he assumed she wore her glasses full time, and as I mentioned earler believes she will need changes again in a year. He told her never to wait for 3 yrs to have her eyes examined, as she had. He is a very reputable optometrists that works under the direction of an opthalmology group.

Again Thanks!


guest 30 Jun 2009, 07:49

I believe her rx is od sp- -2.00 cyl-+.50 add 2.25. os sp--1.25 cyl +.50 add 2.25. Like I said her previous rx had no cylinder and was .75 less in ea eye, but the add was 2.25. She went because she has been experiencing problems with computer and reading for long periods of time. She fully intended to be told that her presbyopia was increasing as she is now 3 yrs older. She told me that she doesn't see to have a problem with her distance and she usually only wears her glasses at work and to read. She was very surprised when asked to read the chart (at a distance) with her glasses on and she couldn't read beyond 20/50 or so. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this new rx show an actual decrease in the add strength, as her rx is stronger for distances? How will this rx be helpful with the computer and reading?

Thanks for your Insight!


Dieter 30 Jun 2009, 07:34

guest,

If your friend's prescription for astigmatism was written as a "+", which is the practice for ophthalmologists in the USA, that amount is added to the sphere. In otherwords, a prescription of -1.00 with a +.50 added would become -1.50 +.50 followed by the angle (with no actual increase in myopia). It might help to determine the actual increase if you tell us the entire RX before and now.


Aubrac 30 Jun 2009, 07:01

guest

I really dont know what the Dr. means by distance vision being off. Do you know what your friends add is? If it is a high add e.g. +3.50, then it might presently be overcompensating with the result that reading for long periods is difficult, and now the sphere has been increased, it is correct.

If the new prescription is correct and her present add is, say +2.00, then her new prescription would give her the same (except for a small improvement with astigmatism correction) reading acuity without glasses as with glasses, because a +2.00 add would cancel out the -2.00 sphere.

Let us know what the add is, and we can work out a simple test using over the counter readers to see what the result would be.


guest 30 Jun 2009, 05:57

OOPs, Post below is from me! Guest


 30 Jun 2009, 05:56

She said that when she went to the optometrist, the only problem she had been having with her current rx is for reading for long periods of time and working on the computer (with glasses on). She does work at a computer all day and reads alot on weekends as well. Her computer screen is about 3 feet away. She then mentioned that when the Dr had her read the line on the chart with her glasses on she thinks it was 20/30 line she couldn't read at all with either eye. Her right eye couldn't see the 20/40 line either. Her former rx was only about -1.00 in left and -1.25 in right. She now also has a minimal rx for astigmatism in both eyes +.50. Both eyes had an increase in sphere of .75. She is concerned about filling the rx (as you mentioned) because no accomodations were made for reading. She told me the Dr said that when "your distance rx is as "off" as hers, that effects vision at all distances". He told her that she shouldn't wait 3 yrs to return as her eyes seem to be changing quickly. Should she fill this rx? I'm still concerned about the rx that I have received being correct, and haven't filled it. We are now both in a quandry.


Like Lenses 30 Jun 2009, 01:28

guest

Has she been doing a lot of near work, or computer work?


Aubrac 30 Jun 2009, 01:10

guest

The sphere increase of -0.75 itself is a little unusual at age 48 as usually the eyes have stabilised by this time. What is your friends full prescription? You said she is slightly myopic and so this increase would seem to be quite high.

As you say, one would think the add would also increase to compensate for the additional sphere correction unless her current add is sufficient. However, at 48 her presbyopia is likely to have increased over three years.

It may be worth having the prescription checked by the optometrist before it is filled because it is possible he has made a mistake.


guest 29 Jun 2009, 18:01

A friend of mine who is 48, as I am had an eye exam today. She hasn't had an exam in 3 years and is slightly myopic and presbyopit. I was rather surprised to find that her distance rx increased by .75. Isin't this unusual, especially when the add remained the same, without any compensation for the distance correction??


Puffin 25 Jun 2009, 13:35

I was wondering what happened too.


Wurm 25 Jun 2009, 12:26

I deleted a question troll and several responses. But the timing was such that responses were being posted just as I deleted (and that happened twice, apparently).


myofan 25 Jun 2009, 11:32

No, julian, I saw the Anna posting on the "latest postings" list and went to look at it -- and it was gone!

Methinks Wurm will have an explanation...


Julian 25 Jun 2009, 11:17

Was I dreaming? The post I was commenting on seems to have vanished.


Julian 25 Jun 2009, 11:15

Who's this Anna, Roy? The last time anyone called Anna was mentioned on this thread was on 14 January 2002 ...


LD 19 Jun 2009, 02:05

Actually, I've always preferred being undercorrected. I just like the impressionist way of life more than the realist's.

In any case,I remember about a year and a half ago when I gave up contacts that my sight was quite bad, with contacts but even more with my glasses. No problem, I didn't mind, so I didn't have my eyes checked or anything. Then this spring things were getting sharp. In retrospect I can say I just felt my eyes getting better, although at that moment I was just puzzled, looking at the trees and seeing all the young leaves in different shades, amazing that was. It was a bit like when I started wearing contacts at 19, I just couldn't get over it how things looked. My idea then was that the beauty of nature struck me because last year I was mostly at home with a terrible pregnancy, feeling bad all day. Thinking about it now though, it wasn't just my mind feeling better.

The whole thing does keep me busy all day, even all night. At first, I had these euphoric dreams, but now I notice I'm feeling anxious. I dreamt I was going abroad by train and starting to panic because I didn't bring my glasses, having convinced myself I don't need them anymore. I suddenly realised I was going to need them at some point, but there was no going back...

So I guess I'm going to keep them on just a bit more and see what happens.


sum1wholovesgirlswithglasses 18 Jun 2009, 21:37

LD im not an expert but i suspect that your glasses were likely overcorrected without noticing,according to some ophthalmologist's assistant i had found on different forums a lot of young patients really prefer being over minused cause they believe more minus equals improvements in visual acuity or overall sharpness,its nearly impossible that your last pregnancy was the cause of a decrease in myopia,nearsightedness usually gets worse or stay pretty much the same


Clare 17 Jun 2009, 12:40

LD - I wouldn't worry about feeling guilty if you prefer what you see with glasses. I suppose the psychological effect is different when your rx is going down to when its going up. I can understand if you'd taken some time to get used to it, like me, then it must feel weird. But if you've become comfortable with wearing glasses then you should carry on. Folks here will say there's no absolute that says when anyone should, or shouldn't, wear glasses.

I think my rx is pretty stable now although I've never tried to increase it. I've never really taken to wearing glasses - as people here will testify -so I wear contacts. For a long time I would go avoid wearing glasses when I couldn't wear contacts. I have a pretty good relationship with contacts now so that rarely happens.

I'm sure others here will have some hmore scientific thoughts on what's going on with your eyesight as I'm no expert.


LD 16 Jun 2009, 10:19

Clare

I don't even really notice the difference, I can do the same things without glasses now as I used to.

And enjoying it, I don't know. I'm actually feeling a bit confused, having spent a lot of money on new glasses and possibly having to buy new lenses again (and again and again?). I should have thought about further improvement before buying new glasses. And also, I'd finally got used to wearing glasses (and seeing well) all the time, and now I'm afraid I'll be able to do without most of the time, but having to sacrifice sharp sight. Most people (as I did 13 years ago) go the other way and become full time wearer after living with some blur. I think now it will be hard to do that again. Of course I can still wear glasses all the time, but I'll actually feel a bit guilty. I guess most people here don't understand that.

Do you have problems with your eyes deteriorating or were you hoping for it?


Clare 15 Jun 2009, 12:21

LD - congratulations! A long time ago I read that distant vision tends to improve ahead of presbyopia but I guess you have a while to go before that. I've also heard pregnancy is more likely to increase your myopia rather than decrease it. Sorry, not being hugely helpful.

But these things don't go to plan it seems. My prescription has been increasing through my 30s which is not that usual and I'm now at -3 and -2.75. Are you enjoying your improved vision, or does it just seem strange not to need glasses so often?


LD 15 Jun 2009, 06:41

Hi

I'm not sure if anyone can help me with this, but how can improvement in vision be explained?

I'm 31 and have had around -4, -3,75 for about 10 years, but at some point found myself seeing sharp with my -3,5, -3,25 glasses. After some more months I got headaches, especially when reading with my glasses on, although I preferred not wearing them all the time.

A visit to the eye doctor taught me I now have only -3, -2,5! Wearing my new glasses again I seem to be getting headaches. Possibly my eyes are getting better still?

I'm really curious what may be causing this. Could it be not working currently, having less/no stress? Could it have to do with my last pregnancy or breastfeeding? Could a treatment by an osteopath (for neck problems) have helped?

of course I'm glad with the improvement, but I'm also a little bit afraid. After having hated my nearsightedness for 15 years, I now fear losing it!


Cactus Jack 30 May 2009, 15:09

Philpit,

Yes, but it is up to the wearer to determine if the corrected vision provides enough benefit for full time wear. Apparently, Bon has not felt the need for full time wear. Everyone's needs are different and we can't judge for them.

C.


Philpit 30 May 2009, 14:25

Hi Cactus

Interesting that full time wear is recommended at such low levels of astigmatism. Is that common?


Cactus Jack 30 May 2009, 03:56

bon,

She probably suggested full time wear was because of the cylinder correction for your astigmatism. Astigmatism affects vision at all distances and is usually most noticeable when reading small print. It isn't too bad at low levels, but it causes increased fatigue because it is impossible for your eyes to focus properly for sharp, comfortable vision without external correction.

C.


bon 30 May 2009, 03:20

Clare, no the doctor didn't explain, and I'm afraid I didn't ask.

She was kind of surprised when I told her that I didn't wear my old glasses all the time. The old prescription was similar to the new one, but without astigmatism correction.


Clare 29 May 2009, 11:40

bon - did he say/did you ask why the recommendation to wear them all the time? Especially given that you think you see okay without them some of the time.


bon 27 May 2009, 08:41

Thanks, Cactus Jack!


Cactus Jack 27 May 2009, 07:42

bon,

Astigmatism can develop over time. it does not increase like myopia, but it does change. Astigmatism is usually the result of unevenness in the curvature of cornea whereas myopia is the result of a mismatch between the total optical power of your cornea and crystaline lens and the length of your eyeball. Changes in myopia are usually caused by growth and elongation of the eyeball.

C.


bon 27 May 2009, 07:08

Hi!

I just had an eye exam: R -1,00 -0,25 90, L -0,75 -0,50 40. I was told by the eye doctor to wear them all the time. I wonder why, because I'm perfectly fine wearing my glasses only when I need them, just like I did before.

This is the first time I have clyinders in my prescription. Can astigmatism develop over time, and does it progress, like myopia does?

I'm 30 btw :)


bon 27 May 2009, 07:00


Aubrac 26 May 2009, 05:10

Hello Alice

An interesting prescription, can you tell us if the the ADD +3.00 is a reading add? This would counteract the -1.50 and give you +1.50 for reading.

In other words without glasses you still need +1.50 glasses to read easily - is this correct?

Or is the 3.00 the amount of base out prism although it is not generally written as an 'add'.

Prism is usually divided between both eyes but you seem to have been prescribed .5 base out prism in one eye only. This is a very low amount of prism and would suggest your right eye tends to turn in slightly when reading, and the base out prism will help correct this and keep both eyes aligned.

Did your optometrist give any reason for this and is there anything he noticed that would need the correction?

Prism will make the lens thicker on one edge but a small amount such as .5 should be hardly noticeable.


Alice 23 May 2009, 06:21

Hi Just got a new prescription I have to have a prism in my right eye.

sph cyl axis prism

R -150 -150 145 1/2 out ADD +3.00

L -175 -025 90 nil ADD +3.00

Can you explain this what do all the numbers mean also will the lens with the prism be thicker


Lisa 17 Apr 2009, 12:48

My rx is -19d in both eyes, my acuity is not as it was with such strong glasses. Also i've noticed that my eyes sometimes cross when/after reading. Maybe i need prisms?


Julian 07 Feb 2009, 02:41

Andy: that's a really good suggestion of Aubrac's. Online suppliers are a lot cheaper than High Street opticians, so you needn't spend as much...


Aubrac 06 Feb 2009, 12:56

Andy

Don't worry. Your prescription for short sight is very low, and your astigmatism (cylinder correction) is also low.

You can never tell anyone if they need to wear glasses because at very low levels of correction, like yours, it is purely a personal matter. However, you may find that reading signs, destination boards, etc, is a lot easier with glasses.

I'd suggest you get your prescription made up with an on line site for maybe 15, try wearing them and see what the benefits are. Only you can tell.


Andy 06 Feb 2009, 08:53

Hi im 24 and went as i hadnt been for afew years and thought i was due a checkup. Is it likly they will get too much worse? I guess i should get some if their will be an improvement. I think the thing is that ive always thought i had good vision, and it came as abit of a surprise to find out i havent.


Julian 06 Feb 2009, 06:45

Well Andy, if your vision was all right and you don't want to wear glasses, why did you go for a test? Could it be that somebody observing you thought you weren't seeing as well as you thought you were? Honestly, it's up to you whether you get glasses now or in a year or two when your eyes have got worse - as they almost certainly will, because it's in the nature of short sight to get shorter. You can put off the evil hour until that myopia really starts to bite - or you can get them now and have them handy for those moments when you find you can't see the cinema screen or the TV or the destination of the bus that's approaching. It really is up to you. How old are you by the way? I'm guessing between 16 and 20.


Andy 05 Feb 2009, 08:15

Ok so you would recommend getting glasses? As i hadnt noticed anything wrong with my vision before the test, and am not that keen on having to wear glasses!! If i did get them when would i need them?


Julian 05 Feb 2009, 08:08

Andy: it means you are a little bit short-sighted and have a little bit of astigmatism. If you read the recent posts on the 'Astigmatism' they will (I hope) explain that with glasses you will see a bit better and suffer a lot less eyestrain.


Andy 05 Feb 2009, 07:57

Hiya i went to the opticians yesterday and got a prescription of R= -0.50 +0.50 10 L= -0.75 +0.25 100. What does this mean do i need glasses as i havent had any before?


russell 03 Nov 2008, 11:43

Eli,

Sounds like you could use bifocals. How old are you?


Eli 03 Nov 2008, 00:41

Re And: I am now completely dependent on my glasses for seeing anything beyond 100 cm, but I am always being bare-eyed when reading as my eyes could not focus well with the glasses--- I cannot identify normal fonts (12-20 pt) at normal reading distance (30-50 cm), but I can identify them with ease without glasses.


And 02 Nov 2008, 13:14

Eli,

Any posts for the 'Going Without Glasses' thread ? Are you a full-time wearer ?


Eli 02 Nov 2008, 02:39

But my acuity without glasses has dropped further to around 20/300 after wearing my new glasses for 4 days.


Eli 02 Nov 2008, 02:36

Re: I've just had a new prescription. My old prescription was -1.5/-1.5, and my new one is -3/-3. The acuity with glasses on my last post was based on the old prescription, not the new one.

With my new prescription, my acuity is around 20/10 (perfect) for both eyes now.


sum1wholovesgirlswithglasses 24 Oct 2008, 15:58

Eli what is your recent prescription?

are you longsided or shortsided?

do you wear your glasses full time?

hope i did not asked to many questions at once^^


Eli 24 Oct 2008, 15:39

My acuity without glasses: 20/200.

My acuity with glasses: 20/40.


Cleventine 20 Oct 2008, 14:15

Brian can't focus his camera because his glasses are off.


Mack 20 Oct 2008, 12:20

Brian,

Your new glasses would look better if they were if focus.


Brian  19 Oct 2008, 12:03

I got my new glasses, they really aren't that bad.. I'm glad I listened to my wifes suggestion. Being rimless the glasses are not thick at all for a -6.00 prescription:

here are my new rimless glasses:

http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2460631870034567310cYsaNl

here were my old glasses:

http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2802704430034567310geFCFo#commentForm


Brian  19 Oct 2008, 12:03

I got my new glasses, they really aren't that bad.. I'm glad I listened to my wifes suggestion. Being rimless the glasses are not thick at all for a -6.00 prescription:

here are my new rimless glasses:

http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2460631870034567310cYsaNl

here were my old glasses:

http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2802704430034567310geFCFo#commentForm


Brian 17 Oct 2008, 20:03

Got a call today that my glasses are in, will likely pick them up tomorrow.. I'll let you know how they turn out..


And 14 Oct 2008, 13:56

Sandra, any update ? Are you wearing full-time ?


Brian 14 Oct 2008, 13:31

Had an eye exam yesterday, no major changes, left eye went from -5.75 to -6.00, right eye stayed at -5.25 but had an astigmatism correction of 0.25 added in... Got a pair of Polo, Semi-Rimless glasses, real small frame.. My wife had to talk me into getting the semi-rimless frame, I was concerned the lenses would look too thick in them even with the thinner lenses I got, my according to the optican, they wouldn't be any thicker than my wifes semi-rimless glasses, which are a bigger frame, with regular lenses at -1.75, so we'll see how they turn out.. He said if I don't like them they have that 30 day return policy so we'll see what happens.. We'll just figured I'd update everyone on my prescription since its been a awhile since I posted..


Aubrac 16 Jun 2008, 01:26

Benn

I sympathise with you, my wife is the same. We live by the sea and the other day she asked what the dark blob across the bay was - it was obviously a clump of trees, then walking past the harbour I was looking at the water and she said - look at that dead fish, it was actually a feather floating on the water!

Like you I want to see signs, numbers etc clearly at distance but it really doesn't seem to bother her.Unfortunately for me as she looks great wearing glasses.


lazysiow 15 Jun 2008, 02:11

They still look like minus if the minus is significant but things will be slanted in a particular direction. With my older plus glasses they just seem weaker in a particular area.


Clare 14 Jun 2008, 22:40

Lazysiow - what do minus lenses for astigmatism look like? Do they look like regular minus or nothing like it?


lazysiow 14 Jun 2008, 17:15

I bet you look gorgeous in them too Sandra :)

Myself I'm practically myopic nowadays, I went from being +0.5 with insignificant astigatism to now being -1.0 of astigmatism with nearly no + power left. I now notice when I take mine off I can hardly read anything at a distance but at least can still see oncoming cars and buses :)


Sandra S. 14 Jun 2008, 12:38

Just to let you know, my prescription sunglasses has arrived, and the extra -0.25 does make a difference.

So I'm definitely going to replace the old lenses or buy a new pair.


Melyssa 14 Jun 2008, 11:59

Chris,

In most states, 16 is the legal minimum age to begin learning how to drive. In New Jersey, it's 17. I would not be surprised if certain states allow driving at age 14. Either way, a person must have vision corrected to near 20-20, whatever the exact number may be by state. I began wearing glasses fulltime at 16 just so I could be allowed to drive.


chrisB 13 Jun 2008, 12:40

How important is it to have corrected vision and how much do others recognise the level of correction needed.

I feel a bit nervous about posting in this thread as Cactus Jack's contributions will have far more credibility and eridution than I can offer.

However in terms of the impact that correcting someones vision might have - is it not just an extension of the social model of disability, whereas when we discuss snellen charts and VA we are exercising the medical model of disability and rather a simplistic one at that.

A very simple example:

In the US, for reasons that are completely opaque to me, 'children' are able to drive cars on the public highway legally at 16. (in all states?) In the UK the age has just been raised to 18. The need to have corrected vision amongst 16 year olds in the US is greater.

Taking two individuals with the same measurable RX, one might progress through life quite successfully without glasses because of their social circumstances and ability to compensate. Another individual in different role might never develop the skills to operate successfully without glasses.


Cactus Jack 13 Jun 2008, 10:26

Nikki,

Yes, that is correct. You simply cannot tell how well a person sees by the power of their glasses. Remember, the only function of the corrective lenses is to provide sharp focus on the retina, the "film" in the biological camera.

We do not yet fully understand how the biological image processing of "vision" works. However, we are making progress by doing it artifically. A good example, if you recall, are the early images of the Hubble Space Telescope that were so out of focus as to be nearly unusable. By applying massive computer resources, it was possible to improve the images enough to make them useful. Yet, by the simple fitting of the "camera" aboard the telescope with "glasses", the images were rendered spectacularly sharp and revealing of the wonders of the universe. Admittedly, the effort required to determine the "prescription" and get the lenses into place were huge, but it was worth it and now the computer resources can be put to other uses.

I guess you could say the same thing about vision correction with glasses or contacts. It frees up the brain to do more constructive tasks. But, of course, if you weren't planning on using your brain for anything anyway, it might as well be trying to process blurry images.

C.


benn 13 Jun 2008, 07:18

I think Catus Jack is sage with his comments. What is a problem to one is of little notice to another.

I demand sharp vision, my wife does not. At times she does not know if she has her lenses in or not.

I am always testing my vision by checking signs or car plates to make sure I am, seeing correctly.

My wife never looks. I will say to her read that sign, and she can't and I say doesn't that bother you? and she says "no, I know there is a sign so why do I need to read it"

It flips me out.


Nikki 13 Jun 2008, 06:54

Cactus Jack

When you say - brain is perfectly capable of creating its own images without any input from the eyes - to me that suggests that even people with very bad vision can get by because the brain is cleverer.

I was thinking of being more charitable when seeing someone who has a very low prescription, thinking that perhaps they could still have vision as bad as someone with a much stronger one. ie that people who look like they have low prescriptions may have worse sight than you'd guess from their glasses. Does that make sense?


Cactus Jack 13 Jun 2008, 06:29

Nikki,

Yes, the actual optical correction required for BCVA is loosely related to quality of vision. After an image is sharply focused, actual visual acuity depends very much on the condition of the retina, its image pre-processing capability, condition of the optic nerve, and image processing capability of the brain. Obviously, the Garbage In - Garbage Out rule for computers applies here also. The brain's image processing capability can "improve" on poor image quality, but in general, it must know what something is supposed to look like to be effective and it takes time and effort.

The brain is perfectly capable of creating its own images without any input from the eyes.

For example: dreams, halucinations, and simply seeing thing as you wish they were rather than as they really are. Another ready example is the graphic images used on some web sites to veryify that a human is responding rather than a computer. Humans are extremely good at pattern matching and a human can recognize a familiar pattern and decipher the letters easily, but a computer can't without considerable effort. Try identifying the letters in the image if it is blurry.

I chuckle at those who "heroically" go without their glasses and expound on how well they can function. If you were to put them in an unfamiliar environment, where they had not "seen" what something was supposed to look like, and remove the supporting clues (audio for instance), they would be lost. If you put them in an environment where images change rapidly, they HAVE to perform, and "instant" evaluation of the situation is necessary, such as driving, they would be positively dangerous to themselves and others.

As you can see, the causes of poor vision are many and varied. Sharply focusing the images on the retina is only one very important element in good vision. Simply saying they need -1.50 or -3.00 or they only see 20/50 doesn't say much about how well they "see".

C.


Nikki 13 Jun 2008, 02:53

Cactus Jack

Does that mean then

- that two people with -2 could see entirely differently?

- that someone with -1.5 might see as bad as someone with -3

Do you know what it is that causes it?

Thanks


Cactus Jack 11 Jun 2008, 19:43

eyespy,

The eye is simply a biological camera and the purpose of corrective lenses of any Rx is to focus images on the retina. Quality of vision (Acuity) is determined by how well the retina and the brain process the images to produce vision. A vision exam hopefully results in what is called Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) and it must be based on the patient's response because, while the examiner can determine pretty closely how well the images are focused on the retina, it is impossible for the examiner to know how well someone actually sees. In that regard, the examiner must depend on what the patient says.

C.


eyespy 11 Jun 2008, 13:57

Just wondering since I read recently that uncorrected visual acuity differs even between two people who have the same prescription, does the eye dr know what you can see from the chart?

Has anyone come across someone with a similar prescription whose eyesight is much better/worse than theirs?

It must be possible that people like Kelly and Emma with low prescriptions sometimes have eyesight much worse than you'd imagine for that prescription? So are we wrong to think that people in the low range don't have too bad vision?

Too many questions I know, but what an interesting subject ... ;)


Clare 10 Jun 2008, 11:32

Sandra - don't worry -2 isn't too debilitating.

And - convenience mainly, it was nice not to have to carry/put on glasses.


And 09 Jun 2008, 16:26

Clare,

What influenced you the most to go fulltime ?


Sandra S. 09 Jun 2008, 16:26

Clare, thank for answering! Interesting how you become nearsighted relatively late. I hope your myopia stabilized by now, and I hope mine will too :)

I had the same -0,5 prescription for 8 years, until I was 28. It then began to increase slowly. And I haven't had any astigmatism until recently.


Clare 09 Jun 2008, 12:19

Sandra - this takes me back a bit! I was about 27 or 28 when I first got glasses, a weak prescription that meant I was legal for driving. That's all I wore them for. It crept up and in the early -2s I got contacts but I didn't always wear them, just for sport. I finally went fulltime with contacts around -2.75.


Sandra S. 09 Jun 2008, 07:32

And, I don't really have interesting stories, since I usually wear my glasses when I need to, for driving, watching tv, movies and other activities that require good distance vision.

I don't wear them outdoors during the day because my vision is good enough in the bright light. As soon as it gets dark, my vision becomes poor, and I put on my glasses.

I also don't wear them at home (except for tv), and at work, because I work on the computer and don't need glasses to see the screen.

Well, there was one embarrassing moment without glasses at my work: I was walking with my colleague along a rather long corridor, when I spotted another colleague approaching on the other end. I greeted him, saying his name, only to find that it is not my colleague, but my boss! I was so embarrassed. Fortunately, none of them made any comment, only my boss gave me a strange look when he passed by me.


And 09 Jun 2008, 05:53

Sandra, have you any tlaes for the 'going without glasses' thread ? When do you choose to wear your glasses ?


Sandra S. 08 Jun 2008, 17:29

Clare, how old were you when you got your first glasses? I'm curious, because I feel we're at the same position, and I also might get beyond -2 before 40. Which would probably make me wear the glasses full time.

I don't mind wearing them, but I like to have a freedom of choice. :)

Anyway, my sunglasses will be done by the end of the week, and I'll see if they make any difference.


ehpc 08 Jun 2008, 12:21

But you'll never be a whole-hearted GWG, Clare, regrettably. Your heart just isn't in it! Pete


Clare 08 Jun 2008, 09:43

Sandra - you're right, it's supposed to stablilise in your 20s but not always. My prescription has increased throughout my 30s, starting at around -1 and progressing to -3 as I approach the big 40. I'm not sure you'd really notice the extra -0.25 unless you're particularly sensitive, but there's no harm in filling the new prescription if you're looking for a change of style.

And there are some great styles around, I was glasses shopping with a friend yesterday and so liked the styles I saw I was tempted to take a look for myself!


Melyssa 08 Jun 2008, 08:41

Poster below,

My prescription may have been around -6.00 by then, because at 27 it skyrocketed to -8.00 (the difference was quite noticeable to me) before eventually finding its way to -9.00.


 07 Jun 2008, 12:05

melyssa what was your prescription once you had reached the age of 25?


Melyssa 07 Jun 2008, 11:19

Sandra,

Normally, myopia will stabilize in one's mid-20's, as it has done for most people I know (or knew), but mine lasted until I reached -9.00 at age 36, 28 years after I first got glasses.


lazysiow 07 Jun 2008, 10:51

Well judging from some of the responses around here, it can keep increasing for some time even past the common consensus of 40 but 40 is about when it slows..


Sandra S. 07 Jun 2008, 09:37

Thanks for the advice, lazysiow. I think I'll get some prescription sunnies for now, and if my vision with them is much better than with my current glasses, I'll replace the lenses. Or maybe bought myself a new pair :)

BTW, how long before my prescription stops increasing? I'm 34 now, wearing glasses since I was 20. I thought myopia stabilizes around mid 20's...


lazysiow 07 Jun 2008, 07:22

Sandra, in general yeah. Although you might want to take advantage of a place like Zenni Optical or Optical4Less to get some cheap ones if there's a new style you want to try or just for a backup pair. It'd be a great excuse :)


Martyn 07 Jun 2008, 07:15

A new receptionist started at our work, she was wearing heavy brown framed glasses with a very high minus RX, very thick power rings and huge cut ins, the lenses must have been at least 3/4 inch thick

A few days later she came into work with new designer glasses, gone were the thick lenses, gone were the heavy power rings unless you looked at an angle at her glasses even the cut in round her eyes seemed smaller, and she looked really beautiful in her medium metal framed glasses. I told her she looked a picture in her new glasses, a tear appeared in her eye, she said that was the first time anyone had given her a compliment, I told her she would get many more.


Sandra S. 07 Jun 2008, 06:52

My regular eye exam revealed that I need a slightly stronger glasses (-0,25 stronger).

Considering this is a very small increase, should I make a new lenses, or should I stick with the old ones (around -1,25, with the mild astigmatism)?

Thanx. :)


Peter G 02 Jun 2008, 01:12

Hello everybody,

I am not sure whether this is the correct thread for my questions, but could not find anything more specific.

I have recently bought an old phoropter on EBay. It seems to work OK, but some of the controls are different from what I am used to (I live in Germany, the phoropter is an old American Optical). Does anybody perhaps have an instruction manual for such an instrument I could acquire?

Secondly, I need to mount the phoropter on a stand of some kind, but cannot install a wall-mounted stand/mount in my living room. Has anybody got any ideas of a home-built simple stand, perhaps even constructed around a sturdy photographic tripod or something similar?

Any help would be much appreciated, Thanks

Peter G


R Ed 20 May 2008, 11:50

guesty,

Try to first type your comment in Word, then cut and paste to Eye Scene.


guesty 20 May 2008, 11:38

Why can't I post more than about 10 words? It just hangs ... help.


guesty 20 May 2008, 05:23

Having trouble posting. Anyone else had problems?


 19 May 2008, 11:47


Iamme 15 Apr 2008, 16:57

I don't like the mirror way, I get a better refraction when they are using the 20 foot chart with the silver (not mirror) board on the wall. I have such high astigmatism, that I can easily tell the difference from a 10 foot room reflected back and a regular 20 foot room. I can make out the 20/20 line with my -6 cylinder in one eye, and -5 in the other when using a regular 20 foot room, but when its mirrored, I can barely make out the 20/25 line. I have found an optometrist that does have a full 20' room, and he's good, so I continue to go there now.

I am a bit shy or skeptical to ask him about doing GOC, as i'd like to have an RX of about -8 in both eyes with the astigmatism correction.


sourgrapes 14 Apr 2008, 09:53

1)how can i increase my eye numbers?

Induced myopia, GOC

2)can i wear biofocals or progressive glasses ( by some self modification in my prescription card )

You can order whatever you want online: Zenni, LBW, Optical 4 less...

3)can i go for thick glasses or myodiscs .. without doing GOC ? i mean to say that can mysodisc glasses be prepared with low prescription ?

Optical 4 Less takes custom orders like this, they will do whatever you want


nick 14 Apr 2008, 01:55

hi guys.. i want to wear thick glasses.. i like biofocal and progressive glasses .. and i love to wear lenticular glasses , myodiscs..!!!

but my prob is i hv cylindrical no.s and that too with lower prescription..-2.5 in both eyes..

i m having two questions

1)how can i increase my eye numbers ?

2)can i wear biofocals or progressive glasses ( by some self modification in my prescription card )

3)can i go for thick glasses or myodiscs .. without doing GOC ? i mean to say that can mysodisc glasses be prepared with low prescription ?


Mark  12 Apr 2008, 15:13

Anybody have keratoconus?


Phil 18 Mar 2008, 08:38

You are lucky EHPC. I'm the same age as you, have a distance rx of -4, and need an add of 2.25 to read.


ehpc 17 Mar 2008, 13:48

I'm sure you've got some years to go, Clare:) I believe I am correct in thinking that you are about 16 years younger than me (I am 53). I have a second pair of glasses which is minus 6 as opposed to my normal minus 7. The minus 6 glasses are ostensibly for 'reading' but I really hardly use them. Occasionally for computer or reading at night, but not much more than that.Pete


Clare 17 Mar 2008, 12:30

Not yet Hansel. A few years to go yet I hope!


Hansel 15 Mar 2008, 12:40

Is this an admission that presbyopia is creeping up on you, Clare?


Clare 15 Mar 2008, 11:17

Julian - also it's easy enough for we myopes without astigmatism to take them off or peek beneath them!


Julian 15 Mar 2008, 10:01

Phil: I've been thinking (on and off) all week about what you said last Saturday:

>I wish I'd gone for bifocals right from the start. But, in the UK at least, it's not something that opticians seem to suggest. Things seem more enlightened in the US.

I think our opticians expect that myopic first time wearers will, by keeping their glasses on, get their idle ciliary muscles working. On the face of it, this seems to me to make sense - after all, they don't give newly-corrected hyperopes a weaker Rx for distance: they tell them it'll take a few days to get used to the lenses. And what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!


Julian 14 Mar 2008, 18:39

No, you're right, Puffin, it doesn't - unless it's reflected. A low myope can focus better on smaller type at half the distance, and so on.


Puffin 13 Mar 2008, 20:59

I've heard of a half size eyechart being used at half the distance. I'm not altogether certain it amounts to the same.


Cactus Jack 13 Mar 2008, 19:52

Trent,

I have had a similar exam. It is the latest thing in examining equipment and it uses very clever optics and a special mirror (slightly concave I think) to give the effect of a 20 foot (6 meter) target in a rather small room.

Exam rooms used to be long and slender. Then they started using smaller rooms with a mirror on one wall and reversed Snellen charts (actual or projected), then CRT Monitors, and now this. I must admit, I liked it better with the chart actually 20 feet or a reflected 20 feet away.

If I can find out more about the optics involved, I post it.

C.


Trent 13 Mar 2008, 19:12

Very strange eye exam yesterday.

I was escorted into a very small room containing a phoropter. I thought to myself that this room is too small to project letters on to any wall. To my surprise the doctor told me to read the letters reflected in a mirror six feet in front of me.

Can someone please explain to me how my distance vision could accurately be measured in such a small space even if the image was reflected.


Tim 10 Mar 2008, 23:01

I remember one in the mid-60s in Oxford whom I went out with for a while, about -8 with an add of about +2. I even "fought" a "duel" over her because one of my friends called her an old boot - hock in the cloisters at dawn & he who first downed 2 bottles and held them down longest won! (Alas, I lost)


Puffin 10 Mar 2008, 07:23

I do remember this young woman with thick minus glasses and bifocals, only saw her for a few minutes while waiting for a fairground ride, the bifocals were hard to spot because the lenses were quite thick (about 7mm)


Phil 10 Mar 2008, 07:03

I'm glad things are going well Jenny. I knew you'd get used to them. It must be good to be able to see to read. Church used to be one of my biggest challenges in my pre-bifocal days. Either I took my glasses on and off or I couldn't see the words in the hymn-book!

You'll come to see them as a positive thing. Any attention they draw will be invariably complimentary. For me there's a "mystery" about bifocals on a young woman that I find totally enticing!

Are there any young female bifocal wearers in the UK lurking here?


Jenny 10 Mar 2008, 06:52

Hi all,

I survived the first weekend with bifocals. It went better than I thought. I went to a movie and dinner with friends and it took them a while to notice the line. Once we talked about it, the issue was over. Yesterday at church a nice older lady commented about them and gave me tips on how to use them. It was actually kind of cute. Thanks for all your help and support.


Slit 09 Mar 2008, 23:18

hi Jenny,

It is good that you met the doctor for the opinion and updated the correction before the eyes got more worst.

However, re: the comment of bifocals are not so sexy on a 22 yr old. Well, its a matter of perception. Probably there can be some one in your community who find it interesting and may be even attractive. Its just like some people like long earings vs some people prefer tiny star like ear wear....

Good luck and pls keep us updated.

What was the immediate reaction of your friends? (and boyfriend if one exists?


presbyope Challenged 09 Mar 2008, 18:04

Cactus Jack, Thanks. I suspect that her ciliary muscles are better than most. For example, we were out to dinner the other night and she was able to get through the menu without glasses. Meanwhile at another table was a couple we knew with a woman the same age and she immediately pulled out her reading glasses. But my wife does like to read in bed and she always does it bare eyed with the book about 10 inches from her face. And she always has contacts or glasses on, claiming she is absolutely blind without them. I am hoping that the progressive lenses are quite satisfactory so that even with contacts she uses her reading glasses more frequently. it has become quite apparent that when she goes to read something she is pulling her head back, but I do not think she has embraced reading glasses yet, although she says they are better than regular glasses


Melyssa 09 Mar 2008, 08:15

OttO,

I began reading about age 4, and I got my first glasses at age 8, with a prescription of -1.75 & -1.50. I never wore glasses while reading until I started wearing them full time at age 16. From then on I wore glasses whether reading or viewing things far away.

At 48 I got my first add (+1.50), and 2 years later it was +2.50.


OttO 08 Mar 2008, 14:27

As we all know, when to wear & when to not wear our glasses is very personal. Just depends on what is comfortable for each of us.

As a myope who began wearing glasses as a teen, I always removed my glasses for reading until presbyopia hit. With presbyopia & astigmatism I now read with my glasses.

I've often wondered if myopes who needed glasses at the time they began to read (Age 6) are more likely to read with glasses than those of us who began wearing glasses as teens or later. Any thoughts?


Guest 08 Mar 2008, 14:16

Benn

I find looking under them works very well. Or off.


benn 08 Mar 2008, 14:12

Guest

Ever do that...what a pain. Also your glasses get scratched and bent out of shape and when you look up you get a headache.

if you are wearing glasses why would you want to take them off to read? Bifocal or progressive is no big thing.


Guest 08 Mar 2008, 14:07

Jenny/Cactus Jack

Wouldn't it just be easier to take off the glasses? Then the exact same add would be unnecessary.

Or did I miss something?


Jenny 08 Mar 2008, 11:29

Phil,

Thanks for your nice comments. I can tell you feeling sexy as I wear them right now is not what I am feeling. 22 year olds shouldn't have to wear bifocals but I guess that is my lot in life.


Phil 08 Mar 2008, 09:39

That's brilliant Jenny. At least you'll be able to see. And I think that bifocals are amazingly sexy on a young woman! Good luck.


Cactus Jack 08 Mar 2008, 09:32

Jenny,

Glad to be of help. I hope you kept your single vision glasses. Even with the bifocals, your ciliary muscles are having to work some for intermediate distances and reading and they will gradually become re-conditioned. You may find that in a few months you don't need the bifocals except for very lengthy close tasks.

Please let us know from time to time how you are getting on.

C.


Cactus Jack 08 Mar 2008, 09:24

Presbyope Challenged,

The relationship between age and the amount of external focusing help required is an extremely loose one. There are two elements to presbyopia, stiffness of the crystaline lens and conditioning of the cilary muscles. Stiffness of the crystline lens is somewhat related to age, but genetics and the biochemical environment for the lenses is more significant. Conditioning and responsiveness of the cilary muscles is almost unrelated to age. People with uncorrected myopia in the -1.00 to -3.00 range are particularly susceptible to de-conditioning of the ciliary muscles because they don't have to use them much. As cases in point, Phil's and perhaps Jenny's comments nearby about focusing problems in their early 20s when their -2.00 and -1.50 myopia was first corrected. I suspect their crystaline lenses were and are quite flexible, but with -2.00 and -1.50 uncorrected, they were / are in effect wearing +2.00 or +1.50 readers all the time and their brain and cilary muscles forgot how to focus. Over time, with effort and probably some discomfort, the cilary muscles and the control system for could re-train and re-learn how to do it. But, re-training the cilary muscles isn't much different than any other muscle building course: No Pain, No Gain. And, it doesn't happen overnight. Sometimes temporary bifocals will help with the re-training. You don't start weight lifting with 50 Kg.

I think if you are patient and make the right and timely supportive comments, your wife will accept the fact that her uncorrected vision is really limiting her quality of life and she will come around.

C.


Jenny 08 Mar 2008, 09:09

To All,

Thanks for all the advice. This place is really a Godsend. I went back this morning, told them my problem and they were very helpful. I had my near vision rechecked with my glasses on and low and behold was told the same thing you have been saying. I received bifocals. She gave me an add of +1.50 which in affect takes away the distance correction. I am not real excited about the bifocal at 22 but am relieved that my vision is now clear. I went with the lined and am getting used to them as we speak.


Phil 08 Mar 2008, 03:16

I wish I'd had this advice when I first got glasses.

I was about 21 and was prescribed just over -2. My distance vision had been getting worse but I hadn't had an eyetest for about 3 years. The optician was horrified and told me to go fulltime at once.

When I picked up my glasses I was amazed by the clarity of my distance vision: I could read the names over the shops opposite and pick out the features pf passers-by. But when I came to write a cheque to pay for the specs I couldn't focus on the chequebook. I mentioned it to the optician who seemed unconcerned. Things never really improved, probably because I never wore fulltime.

It was only when presbyopia set in and tests started to involve reading tiny close-up print wearing my distance rx that things improved. I got a 1.5 add and now have 2.25 (after nagging the optician) and can read well wearing glasses.

I wish I'd gone for bifocals right from the start. But, in the UK at least, it's not something that opticians seem to suggest. Things seem more enlightened in the US.


Astra 08 Mar 2008, 02:44

Jenny, I think bifocals or progressives may be convenient for your situation, but did you compare your acuity for close-up without glasses? I think it is advisable to have 2-3 pairs of glasses of different prescriptions. For me, I need +2.00 correction (In addition to -2.50 for distance) for reading (focusing within circa 70 cm).

I think your situation is quite normal, as the flexibility of ciliary muscles varies between individuals. Some may adapt well between close-up and distance, while some may find it difficult. (Though most would not encounter problem until they reach their 40s). I don't think you should forcibly adapt to the -1.50 for close-up, as this may prove adversely affecting your adaptation for distance. In fact, that process is exactly the same as inducing myopia to your eyes, and your myopia would probably progressing very fast that way.


Presbyope Challenged 07 Mar 2008, 21:16

Cactus, The other glasses are single vision, so my concern is whether or not the progressive lenses will be satisfactory (I know you can only offer an opinion, albeit a very knowledgable one). I suspect she may have needed a stronger add, but she is reluctant to wear glasses at all, although she does not mind the chic readers that she has. Now, when she wears glasses instead of contacts, she is often having to pull the frames down for anything very close. I am hoping that the progressives will be more compatible and that she will wear more. I suspect a +2.00 add might hasten that process. Although that add seems a bit high for someone who is 45


Cactus Jack 07 Mar 2008, 20:55

Presbyope Challenged,

I suspect sha may have really needed a stronger add than +1.00 or that her ciliary muscles have become deconditioned pretty quickly. It can happen with surprising speed.

She will probably like the +2.00 bifocals, but may not like the progressives because the transition zone will likely be every narrow and the area of useful close vision will be small. If she has both lined and progressives, she may opt to wear the lined bifocals around the house and the progressives in situations where she only needs to do a little reading.

You know your wife better than anyone else, is the fact that she is needing additional reading help oausing her any problems? It could be hard for her to deal with and she needs support from you.

C.


Cactus Jack 07 Mar 2008, 20:34

Jenny,

It would not be unreasonable to go back to the eye doctor and tell her the problem. She may suggest bifocals or waiting a little longer. If she suggests bifocals you have two choices, lined or progressives. You will be sorely temped to get progressives, but frankly lined bifocals are much better from an optical standpoint until you get into some very expenive lenses. One solution would be to get some bifocals with an inexpensive frame for classroom use only and keep the single vision glasses for general wear. Treat them like "readers".

Remember, you are looking for and paid for is visual comfort and efficiency. If you don't get it from these people, it is not unreasonable to ask for a refund and go elsewhere, but don't delay.

May I ask where you live?

C.


Presbyope Challenged 07 Mar 2008, 19:36

Cactus, Quick question. My wife has ordered two pairs of glasses. The pair in which she wanted progressives, the optician said the lens was not tall enough - needed 26 ml. So she switched to one that was slightly taller. The reading add is +2.00, which seems to me to be a lot for someone who just got a +1.00 add about 4 months ago. Do you think she will be able to tolerate the progressives with this add? What was interesting as the optometrist was inserting plus lenses, there was some hemming and hawing and then he popped in the +2.00 and she said she could read everything


FRANCY 07 Mar 2008, 18:08

Senior lady on her first visit to an opthalmologist was advised that she had

PRESBYOPIA. No, she said..."It's impossible....you see I am a CATHOLIC"

. In the name of the father.........etc.


Kelly 07 Mar 2008, 14:25

I first went to Lenscrafters in the mall near me and tried about 30 pairs on. It just felt wrong with real glasses on my nose. Plus the service was not what I thought it should be. I later went to Hakim and it was like night and day. The service was great. She helped me choose frames and then we reduced selections.

They had a two for one that was supposed to be 2 for $199.00 add in reflection coating and scratch coating the bill was over $300.00

I then went and got contacts, orb I should say are breaking them in I am up to 8 hours next week. One of the main reasons for the contacts is I would like to change eye colour. Vain I know. I was self conscious walking into a glasses place at first but the second place more than made up for it.


Jenny 07 Mar 2008, 14:01

No they didn't. It was my first time ever in an eye place so I guess I was clueless. I also was really nervous and excited about looking across the room and it being all clear. I didn't even think about trying to see things up close.


Kelly 07 Mar 2008, 13:56

Hi Jenny, I was checked for both distance and near at the eye dr's. When you got your glasses did the sales people not ask you if you could see better after they placed the glasses on your face? I had to read from a pre printed card and the chart on the wall. I also did this after I got the contacts, the only difference was that my eyes were watering like Niagara Falls. Or so it seemed.


Jenny 07 Mar 2008, 13:43

Kelly,

Thanks. It is good to know there are others kind of like me. I don't have any astigmatism. My doctor did say that I could take them off to read but while taking notes off the board that is really hard to do. I don't think she ever tested my near vision with my prescription. She tested my near vision before she had my lenses in the machine. I really wish she had done that.


Kelly 07 Mar 2008, 13:12

Jenny, I also just recently was prescribed glasses.My prescription is

-1.25 I was told by the eye dr. that it may be easier to remove the glasses for reading and computer work. I asked on here about contacts which I got a couple of weeks ago and obviously not being able to remove them and would it affect anything. To be honest my close vision with and without glasses/contacts I feel is about the same.

Do you have the astigmatism in your glasses, and would that be a possible reason? Maybe Cactus Jack could answer that for you.

My eyes were perfect as soon as the sales lady placed the glasses in front of my eyes. She also had me read close up and the chart on the wall in the shop. Did they do that for you?


benn 07 Mar 2008, 12:43

That's why I started with bifocals at age 19. My reading ability skyrocketed as I didn't get fatiged. I never looked back. That was 49 years ago when the only bifocal was lined or curved.

The key is your eye sight.


jenny 07 Mar 2008, 11:53

Cactus Jack,

Thanks for the quick response. I have had my glasses for a little over two weeks. How much more time should I give the eyes to adjust before going back in to see if there is a problem?


Cactus Jack 07 Mar 2008, 11:38

Jenny,

I believe what is happening is that your ciliary muscles and crystaline lenses are having to go to work to focus close. Without your new glasses, your eyes are naturally focused at just about note taking distance. With your glasses, your eyes are focused for distance and the ciliary muscles and crystaline lenses are having to do what they were intended to do, which is add some plus power to focus closer.

It will take a few days or weeks for the muscles to get conditioned and used to providing the necessary focus power. This is common is a situation like yours.

In some instances, bifocals are prescribed as a temporary measure to help. I don't remember the exact thread, but if you look back about 6 months for some posts by Carlos Jr., he discusses his son, Carlos IIIs, new glasses and how he had to get bifocals for a couple of months until his eyes got used to being corrected.

C.


Jenny 07 Mar 2008, 11:13

I am a 22 year old college student who recently got my first pair of glasses. They are for distance and my RX is around a -1.50. I have noticed that when I am taking notes in the big auditorium my glasses really help me see the overhead but I am having difficulty seeing my notes. Is this common? Is it just because I am getting used to wearing glasses for the first time? Is there a solution?


Presbyope challenged 06 Mar 2008, 18:57

Well, my wife went for an exam today to which I accompanied her. Her distance prescription remained the same,although I found out she does have a minor astigmatism (-.5). She was looking for progressives and the reading add that she took was +2.00, quite a surprise since till now she only used +1.00 and rarely used them. I am hoping that she becomes a regular user of the progressives


Presbyope Challenged 05 Mar 2008, 00:56

Aubrac and Cactus Jack, Thanks for the advice. Actually after a bit the contacts were sharp, but there was strain. I won't be able to accomodate the 3.75, although I am sure I could do 1.5 or so ( which would make me more reliant on readers too!). I would prefer minus lenses because I think they look better, although I think use of readers on the right person can be quite attractive.

My wife said yesterday that she thinks her eyes are getting worse as she wore her readers, so there is hope. I have also convinced her to buy progressives for those rare times when she can not handle contacts.


J Berger 04 Mar 2008, 06:41

Hello, can anyone tell me any reason I should be getting worse than normal pain when driving at night and having oncoming lights shine in my eyes? I mean its normal to hurt a bit right, but I'm sure that recently its become heaps worse. I'm forever accusing people of driving with their lights on high beam... but could it be me? I seem to see fine otherwise. i'm 26 if that means anything too.


Aubrac 04 Mar 2008, 00:31

Presbyope challenged

I agree with Cactus Jack. If you are of a similar age to your wife, inducing myopia will be next to impossible. At this age many people become less myopic and tend towards hyperopia and presbyopia.

If you reall want to wear glasses, why not start wearing your readers full time?


Cactus Jack 03 Mar 2008, 20:41

Presbyope challenged,

You didn't mention your age, but it is very unlikely that you could induce myopia unless you are very much younger than your wife. It is interesting that your could accommodate -3.75 contacts. Are you sure you are not a little myopic?

As your wife get older, it is likely that she will soon need some stonger reading glasses if she continues to wear contacts and as the readers get stronger, she will need them more and more. At some point she will likely consider bifocal glasses or contacts.

C.


Presbyope challenged 03 Mar 2008, 19:49

I am slightly presbyopic, but alwayws wished I was myopic. Today, I tried to wear my wife's 3.75 disposable contacts all day. Quite interesting as I enjoyed the view, very sharp and small., but close work was impossible without my reading glasses. Was wondering if there is any way to induce myopia. Also she is 45 and just recently got 1.00 readers. Does anyone have any thoughts on when she would become more reliant on them. Right now she only uses for needlepoin.


Jersey Girl 02 Mar 2008, 14:00

Lurker,

No, I had no idea my vision was bad. I suppose that I squinted a little to view things that were far away but I thought that was the way everyone saw. When I tried on my boyfriend's mother's glasses just to see how they looked on me, it was a real relevation. All of a sudden everything was sharp with intense clarity. Almost super sharp. We were going to a play that evening and these glasses were in the car so I took them into the theater. I could not believe the details that I saw on the stage. I had my boyfriend try them on thinking that they would improve his vision as well but they only gave him a headache.


Cactus Jack 29 Feb 2008, 20:01

George,

This is a little complex to explain so other members will understand what you want to do and my recomendation. Based on what you posted, your glasses Rx of:

OD -0.75 Add +1.25

OS -0.50 Add +1.25

Corrects your distance vision to 0.00 in both eyes and provides +1.25 of the approximate +2.50 necessary to focus at 16 inches or 40 cm reading distance.

Your Monovision contacts Rx of:

OD -0.50

OS +0.75

corrects you to effecively

OD +0.25

OS +1.25

and gives you the same effect as the reading add of +1.25 in your left eye, but does not provide full distance correction in your right eye, which is usually done for true monovision.

Your proposed full reading correction does not result in the same reading Rx in both eyes. Your idea is valid, but you need to decide what final amout of reading assistance you want from the reading glasses and how much work you want your cilary muscles/crystaline lenses to provide and then wind up with the same Rx in both eyes.

C.


Lurker 29 Feb 2008, 08:37

To Jersey Girl: You went from 0 to -1.75? Did you know before you tried those glasses that you saw fuzzy? I can generally see distance fine, but even with my weak prescription have difficulty reading signs or even license plates that aren't so far away. I presume when you tried her glasses you were amazed by how you could see!


George 29 Feb 2008, 07:56

Hi...what do you think of this: After wearing readers +1.25 for several years, Dr prescribed distance glasses R: -.75 L -.50 with +1.25 add. I got monovision contacts, R: -.50, L: +.75. For when I wear the contacts and need to do a lot of reading, I was thinking of getting a pair of glasses to wear over the contacts so I can read with both eyes. Should I get L: +.25 and R: + 1.50 for more comfortable reading? Is this a good idea, or just live with the monovison?


russell 29 Feb 2008, 04:53

Cactus, thanks! Yes, the distance scrip is recent and works well. So I will follow your advice.


Cactus Jack 28 Feb 2008, 16:23

Russell,

Hopefully, you are working from a recent distance Rx amd thar Rx gives you comfortable distance and reading vision at 16".

The add for reading at 12" would be +3.25 and for 11" it would be +3.50. Decide which you want and add that number to the sphere as you did before and keep the cylinder and axis. Because of the additional convergence I would reduce the PD by an additional 2 mm to 59.

C.


russell 28 Feb 2008, 13:43

Cactus Jack...I agree that part of the problem with the old glasses is the length I hold the book (the other part of the problem is that my prescription has changed, and the old glasses are out of date.) In answer to your question, I tend to hold the book 11 to 12 inches from my eyes when I read in bed.


Cactus Jack 27 Feb 2008, 10:57

Russell,

You didn't mention the problem with the reading glasses, but I suspect I know the problem.

I like to read in bed also, but I find that my reading distance in bed is a lot closer that my usual reading distance. May I suggest that you measure your preferred in-bed reading distance and then lets figure out what the in-bed reading Rx should be. As you increase the reading plus, the depth of field becomes shorter so we need to get it right.

C.


russell 27 Feb 2008, 09:58

I asked about this once before, but I must not have understood because the glasses I ordered are less than great. So here goes...I wear progressives everyday. I want just reading glasses for reading in bed. My prescription is O.D. +1.50 sph -1.75 cyl 079 axis add +2.50 O.S. +.25 sph -1.25 cyl 104 axis add +2.50 P.D. 65. Now, if I understand I add those numbers together, so single vision reading glasses would be O.D. +4.00 sph -1.75 cyl 079 axis O.S. +2.75 sph -!.25 cyl 104 axis P.D. 61. Am I correct?


Jersey Girl 27 Feb 2008, 08:22

Lurker,

I noticed the same things last summer when I discovered that I needed glasses for the first time. When I tried on my boyfriend's mother's I was amazed at the intensity and clarity of vision. I got my own glasses coincidently in the same prescription (-1.75s) and wear them full time now. I can even wear -2.25s comfortably. I do not like my vision without glasses because it is blah and gray.


Cactus Jack 25 Feb 2008, 16:54

Lurker,

Yes!

C.


lurker 25 Feb 2008, 14:59

At 35 I have gotten first time glasses R: -.75 L: -.50. I am not surprised that I can see more clearly, but is it normal for colors to be brighter, blacks blacker, and everything more vivid? I knew that some of my vision was not sharp, but didn't expect things to "pop" so much. Normal? Thanks.


Cactus Jack 24 Feb 2008, 20:18

bb,

Everyone is different. It is possible that you need a little reading help even in your 30s. An add of +1.00 to +1.50 would probably be helpful and make for comfortable reading.

C.


bb 24 Feb 2008, 14:26

Full time wearer - quite myopic (-4). I've noticed recently that I have to move books away from me while reading, wheareas in the past i always had to hold them close to my nose. Am only in early thirties. Do I already need bifocals?


Clare 24 Feb 2008, 11:50

Guest

I'm around -2.75 and am happy to wander about at home without glasses/contacts until I want to see something like the TV.


Host 24 Feb 2008, 11:21

Around -8 or -9


Astra 24 Feb 2008, 07:47

Around -2 to -3.


Guest 24 Feb 2008, 03:01

Can someone tell me please what's the limit of power when a myope would feel comfortable without glasses around the house?


specs4ever 22 Feb 2008, 18:05

Usually when there is no reply to an asked question it is because no one knows the answer. I know I don't


logtech 22 Feb 2008, 16:53

No thoughts on my post from earlier in the month?


Fritz 22 Feb 2008, 09:03

glassesforeveryone - friends of mine have a son who has a strong prism correction that was diagnosed when he had trouble paying attention in school. I can't remember all of the details but do know that patching was required to help assess the vertical alignment of his eyes.

Anyway, without prism correction, many people see double, hardly a pleasant situation and probably a whole lot worse than dealing with low, uncorrected myopia. How are you doing now that you've gone fulltime?


Harriet 22 Feb 2008, 06:00

I know I read somewhere that for people who become myopic in their 20s/30s they rarely get worse than about -2(ish).

Has anyone else heard that?

If someone is about -3 in their mid-30s, how long have they probably worn glasses?

Thanks!


stingray 19 Feb 2008, 12:06

TIM: Can you email me the formula to determine the strength of these glasses I have found? my email is 99stingray@gmail.com

Also, I do have a jeweler's loupe, but how do I use that to determine the prescription in the glasses? Many thanks.


glassesforeveryone 19 Feb 2008, 10:01

I have seen some reports here of people expressing real difficulties of going without glasses after they have been prescribed base out prism.

Is this likely to be the case for anyone and does anyone know how an optician identifies the issue?


Cactus Jack 19 Feb 2008, 07:14

meep77,

Most astigmatism is caused by unevenness in the curvature of the cornea. The actual cause is unknown. Unlike myopia, it is not known to be progressive, but it can be slightly variable.

Some of the variance is caused by the fact that low astigmatism is hard to refract accurately because the final Rx depends on YOUR skill. During that part of the exam, You have to decide which lens is blurrier as the axis is being adjusted rather than which lens is clearer. It is hard to do without experience. I personally concentrate on letters like the "O" rather than letters with horizontal, vertical, or diagonal lines like the "E" or "V" because it is easier for me to get it close. Then I ask the examiner if he will let me fine tune the axis at the appropriate time. Most will place your hand on the correct knob and you can adjust it slightly at that point for the sharpest image.

Uncorrected astigmatism causes a lot of fatigue because it is impossible for the brain to focus the eye properly, no matter how hard it tries.

The point of all this is: Don't sweat it, just try to understand your role in that part of the exam to get the Rx as accurate as possible.


Dieter 19 Feb 2008, 04:42

meep77, my cylinder has bounced around constantly as an adult and I have been a frequent wearer of both glasses (with cyl)and contacts (without cyl). In fact in one eye, my last exam was -.50 cyl, the previous was zero, and previous to that was -.25. I think it is more of a process of fine tuning. One thing for a myope with -.50 cyl, is that the doc often will "split the difference" in the contacts prescription and give an extra -.25 sphere to accomodate for no cylinder.


meep77 18 Feb 2008, 22:08

hi all,

a question... I'm 25 years old and have worn glasses since I was around 9. My prescription has always been for simple myopia, and stabilized around -3 for the past five years or so. But when I had my eyes tested yesterday, I was surprised that the doctor prescribed -.50 cylinder correction for astigmatism as well.

Is this common to become astigmatic at my age? Is astigmatism progressive? Will wearing glasses with cylinder correction make the astigmatism more likely to get worse? Is it difficult to switch between classes that correct for astigmatism and contact lenses that don't?


Dieter 18 Feb 2008, 05:11

Anja, I've been doing monovision for years with an RX close to yours. Why not consult your doctor? Typically, you're "dominant" eye (the one that you favor to use the most) will be used as you distance eye. The other one will be adjusted so that it is comfortable to read. The doc can usually give you sample lenses to try for a week or so, then decide what really works best for your circumstances.


Cactus Jack 16 Feb 2008, 13:45

I don't know how you could put a number on the improvment, but I believe there is some. There is a lot more to vision that just the optics of the eye. Vision acutally occurs in the brain and it ideally has two images to use as a soucre to construct what we perceive as vision. Some poeple are better than others at the task, but the more information the brain has to work with the better.

One thing for certain, if one image is better than the other, it will use the best image as the primary source and use data from the other image to improve the picture. The best thing of course is to provide the brain with two sharply focused images.

C.

C.


eyespy 16 Feb 2008, 13:18

Cactus, do you know how much acuity is improved by seeing with two eyes? If someone is -3 maybe they are 20/200 when one eye is tested but with both eyes does that improve by a percentage? So does seeing with both eyes make a 20/200 in one/each eye a 20/150 when using both?


Tim 15 Feb 2008, 21:02

If you have a strong plus lens, such as a jeweller's eyeglass, a crossed wire "sight" (as on a rifle, but can easily be made),an anglepoise lamp and a good metre rule to hand, you can construct an "optical bench" which will enable you to calculate the power of your lenses. The maths is too long and complicated to post here, but if you are interested, I can e-mail you the method.

This will only work if the plus lens is stronger than the minus lenses - which you can easily check by putting the two together and observing whether the effect of the combined lenses is plus or minus (magnification or minification).

Btw, this method is how I discovered a long time ago that spectacle lenses are always made in multiples of 0.25 dioptres!


stingray 15 Feb 2008, 16:59

I found a pair of high minus glasses. Is there any way I can find out what the prescription is (without taking it to an optical place that is)?


Cactus Jack 15 Feb 2008, 16:27

Anja,

You already have "reading glasses" it is called low myopia. It is just not the same in both eyes.

You did't mention how much astigmatism you have and even low astigmatism can affect reading. Ideally, you should do monovision with the reading eye the one with the least astigmatism. As an easy test of your suitability and tolerance, you might try just wearing the -3 contact in your right eye only. That would be about the same as a +2.25 reading glass for the left eye.

It may take a day or two for your brain to learn to do monovision. Please give us a report on the results.

C.


Anja 15 Feb 2008, 15:09

I am 46 with a prescription of -2.25 (L) and -3 (R), some astigmatism but not so much. Half of the time I wear glasses though socially I wear contacts. I suppose it is to do with my age but I find in low light conditions that it's hard to read. I have a friend who wears mono vision contact lenses, does anyone here have experience of them? For example, if I wanted to reduce the prescription in one eye to compensate how much would that be? Would love to hear from you, thanks.


Cactus Jack 15 Feb 2008, 08:07

Ruth,

Pretty much, but DO NOT order different reading adds unless you are absolutely certain of what you are doing and why. High plus lenses have a very narrow range of useful focus and you might find that you what was in focus for one eye was out of focus for the other and vice versa and you might wind up reading with one eye or the other.

The function of your distance Rx is to correct your overall refractive error to 0.00 in both eyes. Then, the add is applied equally to give you comfortable reading at various distances.

C.


Martyn 15 Feb 2008, 05:17

I wonder where all the lovely people have gone from this site. There was Charlotte, Emily, Jennifer,Tammy, I miss them as they were always good for a good laugh, except Tammy who was the serious one, yet still really nice and considerate. Maybe they have moved on to You Tube they certainly are a loss to this site.

I love the video of Sandra, she seems to have a fab personality, and she looks a real honey in her myodisc glasses she certainly has made a virture out of her glasses.


Ruth 14 Feb 2008, 22:54

Cactus Jack

Thanks this is very interesting.

If I order

OD (Right Eye) Sph -1.75 Cyl -1.25 Axis 130 ADD +3.25

OS (Left Eye) Sph -1.50 Cyl -0.50 Axis 75 ADD +3.00

Would the reading section of my bifocals be the same as my + 1.50 readers

Thanks for all your postings


Cactus Jack 14 Feb 2008, 17:53

Ruth et al,

Please forgive the typos. They sure are easier to spot after they are posted. Maybe I need stronger trifocals.

C.


Cactus Jack 14 Feb 2008, 17:49

Ruth,

Lots of good questions. I'll try to answer.

1. Sphere is one of the major elements of an optical Rx. Cyklinder and axis (they go together) is another major element.

In this case sphere means that the lens is a section of a sphere or globe where the curvature is the same over the whole lens. Sphere generally corrects for refractive errors caused buy the length of your eyeball. In your case, your eyeballs are a little bit too long for the plus power of your cornea and crystaline lens and light reays from distant objects focus just in front of your retina. The minus sphere in your glasses move the focus point back a little so it focuses on your retina.

Cylinder corrects for astigmatism. It looks like a section of a can (like you find in your pantry) and the axis is the angular direction of the long axis of the can. In the optical world, 0 degrees is horizontal and 90 degrees is vertical. By tradition, cylinder axis is from 0 to 179 degrees.

Cylinder and axis usually correct for unevenness in the curvature of the cornea.

2. Except for the fact that you have a cylinder correction for astimatism, YES. Glasses neutralized your refractive error and at low Rx, the optical poser of

your eyes are actually the opposite Rx of your glasses. At highter Rx they will be different because of vertex distance, which the distance from your cornea to the back surface of the glasses. Low myopia without astigmatism means that you have natural (built in)reading glasses and you need "Distance Glasses".

3. YES. Except for the astigmatism (cylinder and axis) Prescription Single Vision Reading Glasses geve you a much larger field of view for comfortable reading than bifocals. Which is nice if you are doing a lot of reading or close work, the disadvantage is that distant things are very blurry with them, like you were more nearsighted than you are.

4. Opticians don't always prescribe the same add for both eyes, but it is rare because most people need the same amount of focusing help in both eyes.

Hope all this makes sense. It really is just straight forward optics. See, you understand more optical physics than you thought you did.

C.


Ruth 14 Feb 2008, 14:49

Cactus Jack

Thanks for you help you have got me very interested understanding my prescription.

I think Sph is my distant RX what is Cyl and Axis .

Would a ADD of +1.75 to my right eye and +1.50 be the same as bare eyed ,

and another +1.50 making a Add of3.25and 3.00 be the same as just wearing ready readers of 1.50

Sph -1.75 Cyl -1.25 Axis 130

Sph -1.50 Cyl -0.50 Axis 75

Why does the optician always give the same Add for both eyes.

I hope you understand my thinking


Dick 12 Feb 2008, 01:17

Wow Ruth, you are some GWG!


Cactus Jack 11 Feb 2008, 15:34

Ruth,

A reading glasses Rx equal to a +3.50 add would be:

OD Sph +1.75 Cyl -1.25 Axis 130

OS Sph +2.00 Cyl -0.50 Axis 75

Subtract 4 mm from the PD you have from your old Rx. If it is shown as two numbers subtract 4 mm from the first or top number.

C.


Ruth 11 Feb 2008, 15:15

Cactus Jack.

Thanks that is a great help.

I think I will order some reading glasses with wide arms I like to hold books about 11ins what rx should I get


Cactus Jack 11 Feb 2008, 12:16

Ruth,

The Distance Rx you need to order is:

OD (Right Eye) Sph -1.75 Cyl -1.25 Axis 130

OS (Left Eye) Sph -1.50 Cyl -0.50 Axis 75

The add needs to be based on your preferred reading distance.

+2.50 40 cm 16 in

+2.75 36 cm 14 in

+3.00 33 cm 13 in

+3.25 31 cm 12 in

+3.50 28.5 cm 11 in

With the +1.50 and +2.00 reading glasses, measure the distances from your eye to the page and then decide how much add you should order.

It may be difficult to get adds above +3.25 from some on line vendors.

If you decide to order some single vision Rx reading glasses, tell me your preferred reading distances determined above and I'll help you with the Rx.

C.


Ruth 11 Feb 2008, 11:03

On there own


Cactus Jack 08 Feb 2008, 21:48

guest,

Contact me at cactusjack1928@hotmail.com

C.


guest 08 Feb 2008, 19:30

Cactus Jack -

I'll let you know when I get them. Hopefully next week.

Any pics of your glasses with 15 BO prism on the net any where? Would love to see how thick they are.


Cactus Jack 08 Feb 2008, 08:10

Ruth,

Were you wearing the readers over your glasses or by themselves?

C.


Ruth 08 Feb 2008, 03:47

Sorry last post was from me


 08 Feb 2008, 01:00

Thanks Cactus Jack.

The P D is on my old form.

I think i worded my question badly .

I do not know how to change the Add on the bifocals as i have a minus for my distance in my bifocals so i think i need more add to make them the same as +150 ready readers


logtech 07 Feb 2008, 22:42

I was recently putt-putting (miniature golf) with my son the other evening at a glow-in-the-dark place. I wasn't wearing my glasses at that time, because I do better without them believe it or not in miniature golf. My left eye gave me a very fuzzy/blurred view under the black lights in the course, and my right eye gave me very sharp/clear vision. I'm a bit confused on what could possibly be going on, as my left eye prescription is -0.50 -0.25 and my right eye prescription is +2.50 -2.25 -- Anyone have any ideas what would cause black light to do that? I would have put my glasses on to check if it cleared up or not, but I left them in my vehicle as I don't need them too bad since my left eye does most of the work.. heck, im not even restricted on my license because my left eye is good enough. Anyone experience something similar? What causes it?


Myles 07 Feb 2008, 18:48

Cactus Jack,

And how in the world is Ruth supposed to measure the seg height?


Cactus Jack 07 Feb 2008, 18:15

Ruth,

Oops, OS Sphere should be -1.50.

C.


Cactus Jack 07 Feb 2008, 18:13

Ruth,

OD Sph -1.75 Cyl -1.25 Axis 130 Add +2.00

OS Sph -1.25 Cyl -0.50 Axis 75 Add +2.00

PD (Pupilary Distance)

If you don't know your PD, get a scale marked in mm. Look in a mirror and measure the distance between the center of your nose and each pupil, individually. Add them together. Do it 3 times and average the result. It will probably be 55 to 60 mm, but it depends on your facial make up. Enter this valuse on the form. For the +1.50 add just substitute +1.50 for the +2.00 in the add slot.

If the PD is shown as xx/yy the xx would be the number you got which is distance. Subrract 3 mm amd enter it as yy which is near PD.

Hope this is helpful.

C.


Ruth 07 Feb 2008, 15:51

Can you please help I wear bifocals.

Sph Cyl Axis

Right -1.75 -125 130

Left -1.50 -050 75

ADD 2.25

I am having problems reading so I have bought 2 pairs of ready readers one pair +150 for normal reading and +200 for small print I find these much better i want to order 2 new pairs of bifocals with these reading adds how should i write this on the order sheets


Cactus Jack 06 Feb 2008, 20:32

guest,

It depends also on the width of the lens and the index of refraction of the lens material. I think you are close. Please let us know when you get them.

I'm wearing CR-39 15 BO in each eye with a low - Rx and the lenses are about 54 mm wide and 18 mm thick at the outer edge. The inside edge is very thin, but with your -5.00 it may be a few mm thick. Hopefully, the lens maker will adjust the PD inward for the prism so your line of vision goes through the optical center of the lens. If not, you may experience some reduction of acuity.

C.


guest 06 Feb 2008, 19:19

I just ordered new glasses. My prism prescription went from 5 BO in each lens, to 12 BO. My old glasses are noticeably thicker on the outer edges. I would estimate they are about 10mm on the outside edges. The prescription is about -5.00 x -2.00. If what I've read in this post is true (about 1mm edge thickness per prism diopter), then can I expect my new glasses to be 17mm thick?


Cactus Jack 17 Jan 2008, 08:08

Buck,

The amount of displacement of the optical center of the lens for prism is a function of the distance from the center of rotation of the eyeball (not the cornea) and the point where the axis of vision intercepts the rear surface of the glasses lens. You can calculate the actual displacement by using trig functions.

If the eye is not pointed straight ahead, moving the glasses away will change the point of intercept (trig again), but depending on the prism Rx, the change may not be very significant. The higher the amount of prism, the greater the displacement caused by increasing the distance from the center of rotation.

In some ways it is a bit like the effects of vertex distance on the effectiveness of a high sphere or cylinder Rx except, that effect is a square function and the OC displacement caused by prism is linear.

C.


 16 Jan 2008, 13:16

Cactus Jack

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It's really amazing how docs seem to want to avoid the whole prism issue. I went to a new doc the other day and explained pretty much what I said to you. He said, "Well if the PD's off that's a problem and sent me off the his optician (who's hugely expensive) to measure it. Exactly the same presciption, no prism tests in exam.

Any chance pulling the glasses away from the face creates some prism by causing one to look through a different part of the lens?

Thanks again...Buck


Cactus Jack 14 Jan 2008, 14:45

John,

If the Opthalmologist knows what he is doing, there should not be much danger or risk in getting rid of your secondary cataract.

For those who are not familiar with secondary cataract, here goes: Modern cataract surgery involves emulsifying the clouded crystaline lens and sucking it out thru a very tiny incision in the side of the cornea. The rear membrane of the lens capsule is left intact to prevent mixing of the vitreous humor inside the eyeball and the aqueous humor between the cornea and the crystaline lens.

Then a replacement Intra Ocular Lens IOL is inserted thru the incision and positioned in the capsule. Tiny "feet" which protrude from the outer edge hold the lens in the center of the capsule. In a few days, the intact rear membrane of the capsoule will attach itself to the IOL. Over time, the eye may try to regrow the crystaline lens and the rear membrane of the capsule will become cloudy which is the "seconday" cataract. To eliminate this situation, a YAG laser is sharoply focused on the rear membrane and a number of pulses of the laser are used to vaporize small holes in the rear membrane until the central area behind the IOL is vaporized and no longer obstructs vision. Because the membrane is attached to the outer edges of the IOL, there is no mixing of the humors.

The procedure is used only if necessary and it is a once in a lifetime event for each eye. The procedure is painless, but the flashes are very bright and some machines make a "snapping" noise when they fire. The retina in this case is not burned by the YAG because of the tight focus in the plane of the rear membrane. By the time the laser beam gets to the plane of the retina, it is out of focus and so dispersed that there is not enough concentrated energy to damage the retina. In those instances where a YAG laser is used to re-attach the retina, the beam is focused on the plane of the retina and it so difused as it passes through the cornea and crystaline lens or IOL that it causes no damage there.

To better understand the focus method of the YAG laser, think of how a magnifiying glass burns a hole in paper when the sun's rays are concentrated and the cautions about looking at the sun or a laser beam without protection. Concentrated light energy from any source can damage the retina.

C.


JOHN 14 Jan 2008, 13:46

YAG Laser Capsulotomy

JACK: Some years ago you spoke of this to me. Presently I have this "secondary cataract" now, severely in the OS. I had it in the OD in 1992, had the YAG...two years later,retinal detachment,then re-attached. Now in the OS, (I was a severe myope at -20. + 3.50) it is time again for the YAG. Are the dangers the same,or is there improvement and more dafety in this procedure?/J


Cactus Jack 11 Jan 2008, 14:39

Buck,

Sorry to take so long to answer.

It is very difficult these days to find an Optician (Glasses Dispenser) who knows how to adjust the location of the optical center of a lens for prism. The problem is that common muscle surgery as almost eliminated the need for large prism corrections in glasses and few are trained on how to do it and few know where to find it in their reference books. The adjustment ranges between 0.25 and 0.3 mm per prism diopter depending on the amount of prism. The ideal situation would be for the central axis of vision of each eye should intercept the rear surface of the glasses lens at the optical center.

As you can see from the above, the small amount of base out prism you require would reduce the total PD by about 1 mm, though I am slightly suspicions of the 33/33. With your low Rx that would almost be inconsequential except for the fact that you want progressives and your axis of vision needs to be close to the center of the channel for the least distortion. The more critical item is the vettical prism. My suggestion, would be to try to find another Optician who seems to understand how important getting it right is. Also, be sure that they will remake the glasses if you are not comfortable with them.

I am trying to remember the name of the primnary text on the making and fitting of glasses, I think the author is Swann or something like that. Perhaps another member can help out here. If you can locate the text, you might see if you can find the reference yourself and show it to the Optician, otherwise he will probably not believe you, after all he is the EXPERT, and you are merely the patient who has to wear the glasses.

On the effects of Vertex Distance on effective strength of lenses. In you increase the Vertex Distance of a minus lens, it becomes less effective which has the effect of reducing the - Rx. A plus lens is just the opposite, increasing the Vertex Distance effectively increases the strength of the lens. It is hard to calculate for your Rx because of the low + sphere and the higher minus cylinder. This is a SWAG, but I would guess that at about 6" or 150 mm the effective Rx would be something like.

+1.25, -1.50 x 78

+0.75, -1.50 x 84

A more important factor is the distance from the glasses to the object being viewed.

We have an expression in our part of the world if information is considered very accurate, "You can take it to the Bank". I wouldn't!

C.


Brian-16 10 Jan 2008, 18:40

P- If they were what was prescribed I would not ask for more.Too much would make you see double.My prisms are just the opposite base out-as my eyes tend to turn in.


P 10 Jan 2008, 13:26

I have just got new glasses with prism (2 degrees, base in). I thought it would make a big difference and that I"d feel a pull on my eye muscles. So far this hasn't been the case. Should I ask for stronger prism?


Buck 09 Jan 2008, 12:25

Cactus Jack

Help me out here, please, I you can.

How does the pd need to be adjusted for prism? The pupilometer measures my pd as 33/33. In reality with or without prism, it's about 34/35 in order to get the progressive channel lined up. No one believes this even though I produce old glasses. What do I need to say? Why does this happen?

Also, when I hold readers or progressives about 6 inches from my face the images become much more clear and I feel relaxed. One Doc says it makes the script stronger, another says weaker. Duh!!!!

+1 -2.50 78 1.5 Out .5 d Up

+.50 -2.50 84 1.5 Out .5 Down

Many thanks for you in"sight" and help.

Buck


Emily 04 Jan 2008, 11:41

Astra -- I think one diopter approximates 100 in the denominator. When my prescription was -12 (it's -13 now), my optometrist said my unaided vision was about 20/1,200.


Cactus Jack 03 Jan 2008, 20:54

Astra,

Correct.

C.


Astra 03 Jan 2008, 19:41

also if you have significant astigmatism, your acuity without glasses would be much less I assume.


Cactus Jack 03 Jan 2008, 15:00

Clare,

I've never been convinced that there is a linear mathematical relationship between an optical Rx and visual acuity as measured by lines on a Snellen Chart. Right around the 20/20 line it seems a 0.25 diopter step in the plus direction will drop visual acuity to 20/25 or 20/30 and a 0.25 step in the minus direction will improve it to about 20/15, sometimes. There are too many other factors that affect visual acuity than just sphere correction such as accuracy of the cylinder and axis correction, retinal contition, or what you did the night before. The farther you get away from the 20/20 line toward the top of the chart, the more any mathematical relationship falls apart. You can identify the big E many clicks of the phropter before it is sharp and clear, which is why the final Rx is derived using little bitty letters near the bottom.

C.


Clare 03 Jan 2008, 11:51

There are differing opinions I think. I've been told that my -3 is equivalent to 20/200


sam12744 03 Jan 2008, 04:03

Astra and others,

Can we please get away from this ridiculous notion that being a bit shortsighted constitutes being blind.A truly blind person might find that quite offensive.If your eyesight can be corrected with lenses,you are not blind by any stretch of the imagination.Only if you have very little or no sight at all(even with corrective lenses) can you be considered blind.


Astra 02 Jan 2008, 23:32

I think 20/350 can be considered as blind... well I certainly wouldn't describe my eyesight is completely blind (20/100 is nowhere near 20/300) but yes, it is very blurry to read beyond 3 feet or see anything clearly beyond 6 feet.


Astra 02 Jan 2008, 23:29

-3.50 is around 20/120 me think.

I've heard

-2.00 is roughly 20/70

-3.00 is roughly 20/100.


Brent 01 Jan 2008, 17:14

-3.50 both eyes. 20/350 I think?


Andrew 14 Dec 2007, 12:50

Oh to be limited to reading things at a maximum of 3 feet away from my face... I'm not sure I remember when I could last do that!


eyespy 14 Dec 2007, 09:23

Came across this post randomly and it struck me how interesting people's thinking about their own vision is. Possibly needing a restriction on the license can only make this person maybe 20/60??

http://wolfwyndd.livejournal.com/26076.html

So I seem to have misplaced my glasses at some point last weekend. Marcy, Momma Lynne and I have torn the house apart looking for them and none of us can find them. So I figured since it had been 18 - 24 months since I'd had my eyes checked I should probably make an appt. to get that done. Lenscrafters is who did my eye exam last time and who I got my glasses from so I made an appointment over my lunch hour. Well, I guess the REAL reason I figured I'd get my eyes checked again is when I pulled into the parking lot yesterday WITHOUT my glasses on, I lightly tagged the car in front of me. Ooooooppps. Ok, guess my eyes were worse then I thought. So I went over at lunch, got my exam, picked out a pair of glasses and 312.00 later, I've got a totally new perscription. According to the eye doctor my eyes have gotten at least one perscription strength worse in my right eye. To the point that he said I'd probably have to have a resctriction on my license for glasses in the next two to three years. That's the bad news. The good news, according to him, is that most people in their 40's start to need reading glasses so when everyone else is putting glasses on to read menu's in restaurants, I'm taking my glasses OFF to read. Oh, and just for some clarification, I'm near sighted. VERY near sighted apparently. You stick something in front of my face, I'm fine. Hold something in front of my more then three feet and things start getting difficult to read. Of course there's also that whole depth perception thing. THAT'S where things get really iffy.


Wurm 06 Dec 2007, 18:14

I can delete a post. Please send an explanation. My email address is lensman00@go.com


lll 06 Dec 2007, 17:44

does anyone know how to delete a post from this site?


Ed 10 Nov 2007, 02:46

Posting this just reminded me of the girlfriend I had around that time who hated glasses. I was convinced I wanted my eyes to be comfortable and to be able to see ok and she was always saying do you need your glasses/do you know you've still got your glasses on. Of course she had perfect sight and in the I end I remember I got really angry and told her if she couldn't take how I looked it was over. Funny thing was I got compliments from other people just not from her.


Ed 10 Nov 2007, 02:38

Amsterdamer

I too have a big discrepancy between prescriptions for each eye since I first got glasses in my early 20's. It's mostly been 1D difference between them. It was something like-0.75 and -1.75 in the beginning and it wasn't till I got to somewhere around -2 and -3 that I found the interference from the -3 so irritating that I just decided it was more comfortable and sensible to wear them all day.That was about 10 years ago and I'm now about -2.50 and -3.50/-3.75.


Amsterdamer 04 Nov 2007, 07:29

Cactus Jack

Thank you for all the advise. My -3.25 eye seems to tire quite easily if I don't wear my glasses and though I don't read with them sometimes after reading it feels sore. If I then put on my glasses the tiredness will go away. Does that surprise you at all?

For that reason I am mostly wearing my glasses although around the house I am okay without except for tv or playstation.

Minnie

I exactly know what you mean. I have found that it is much more comfortable to wear glasses than go without. When I first got these new glasses I didn't realise that I would find such a difference in just a few weeks. My eyes feel great if I wear them.

Clare

I don't have a headache, just mostly one sore eye. That's no fun!


Emily 23 Oct 2007, 13:30

Sorry, 20/l,350.


Emily 23 Oct 2007, 13:28

A rough guide is 20/100 for each diopter after the first 2. So 20/800 would be about -8 and -13.50 would be 20/1l,350 (approx.) At that level, it gets pretty academic.


 23 Oct 2007, 13:14

I hope someone knows the answers. What does 20/800 vision translate to in diopters? Also what does -13.50 translate to in 20/???? Thank you.


Minnie 22 Oct 2007, 13:44

Amsterdamer,

I have the situation of being +2.00 in my right eye and plano in my left. I had never been prescribed glasses before, but finally got them this year and the change is incredible. I am finally using both eyes! I can actually feel my right eye working; when I remove the glasses, my right side becomes very blurry, I briefly see double, and I have the sensation that my eye is turning in. My husband says that he doesn't see that happening, but that is the sensation that I get. When I don't wear my glasses, I can see fine, but develop a headache rather quickly (so I guess I'm not seeing that fine, lol!). I gather it makes a difference if one is myopic, but I thought I'd share from the one eye working harder perspective!

Good luck with the new glasses!

Minnie


Clare 22 Oct 2007, 12:22

Amsterdamer - one of my colleagues was -1.75 and -2.75 and she was adamant that she couldn't go without her glasses. I didn't know much about vision then but remember her prescription because for some strange reason she liked to tell people. Sometimes she would have go bare-eyed because she'd forgotten her contacts and would spend the whole day complaining that she had a headache.

Looking back, we were very unsympathetic, we just told her to get some spares and leave them in her desk!


Amsterdamer 17 Oct 2007, 11:23

Thank you again Cactus Jack.

Yes we have excellent transport here in The Netherlands and you know too that we like to ride our bikes! Good eyesight is advisable for that as well as driving. I think my brain is adapting to the new situation of seeing very well. I'll just see in the next months what happens and if my eyes start to tell me that they need glasses more than I now allow them.


Cactus Jack 15 Oct 2007, 09:14

Amsterdamer,

What you are experiencing is absolutely normal for a person with your Rx. Vision actually occurs in the brain and your eyes are simply biological cameras that provide images to the brain. Cameras whose images are out of focus.

Human beings are supposed to see with both eyes and the brain uses the image from each eye to construct a 3 dimensional picture of the world about you. The brain is extremely good at making the best of what it has to work with. If the images from one eye is better than the other, it will use the better image and either ignore the other image or use elements from the poor image to add information to the good image. It will not use information from the poor image to override the information from the good eye. The brain does all this without any consious input from you.

If a very young child has better vision in one eye than in the other (a condition called amblyopia) the brain will often permanently stop using the image from the poor eye. Even if the eye is optically corrected to 20/20 the brain will never use that eye again. That is why it is so important to detect the condition early in young children (before about 5 or 6) and patch the good eye to force the brain to use the image from the bad eye. Fortunately, at your age, that is not generally a problem and if you correct the bad eye, the brain will soom learn to use it. However, it may take a while for the brain to fully develop good depth perception. Everyone is different.

After having said all that, the decision to wear vision correction, glasses or contacts, is yours. If you like seeing well, wear correction. If you don't care or vanity is the overriding concern don't. You have apparently not had vision correction in the past, so your brain has much experience working with less than optimum input. It now has to learn how to work with two good images and that takes time.

Because you apparently live in The Netherlands and have excellent public transportation, you may have no need to drive. Whatever occupation you choose, you may not need good depth perception, so really good vision may not be all that important.

My suggestion is to wear vision correction as much as possible so your brain will learn how to see really well (like the rest of us) and enjoy the beautiful fields of tulips in all their glory while you are young and your brain is agile. You can always not wear correction whenever you don't want to. In the final analysis, the choice is yours, no one elses.

C.


Amsterdamer 14 Oct 2007, 12:51

Catus Jack, hi

This is the situation. In the last week and a half I have 'experimented' with these great new glasses and I have discovered that I can still see without them (better eye works harder), that they make the worst eye work immediately, and I can read with them and without them. I always thought people who wear glasses cannot see without them, you recommend glasses for comfort I read here tonight on Acuity & Prescription. For anyone who can still see without them does this still make sense? I value your reply.


Cactus Jack 09 Oct 2007, 14:46

Sorry about the typos in the previous post. I think my fingers have a form of dyslexia - perhaps we could call it dystypeia.

I don't think I'm the only one with the affiction.

C.


Cactus Jack 09 Oct 2007, 14:42

Amsterdamer,

I am not an eye care professional, but I have had some personal expoerience with a situation similar to yours. Fourunately, my difference was discovered and corrected when I was 14 and I did not have too much trouble getting used to both eyes working together. However, when I got to university and my reading load became great, I had to start wearing bifocals to keep from getting headaches.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, your difference results in monovision where you use your -1.50 eye for distance (even though a little myopicly, it focuses at 66 cm) and you read with your -3.25 eye. It is as if your -3.25 eye effectvely has a "built in" reading lens of +3.25 which focuses at about 30 cm.

I think I mentioned that your -3.25 eye will probably rebel at having to go to work, because now, the ciliary muscle and crystaline lens have to provide the additional plus power to focus close. BTW, you can calculate the plus power required to focus close by dividing the distance in cm into 100. For example to focus at a typical reading distance of 40 cm requires +2.50. I suspect you are usesd to typically erading at about 30 cm because of the "built in" +3.25 in your right eye.

Your eyes were intended to work together rather than individually, but you are going to have to learn how and your ciliary muscles have to get conditioned. It may take a few weeks to get comfortable. However, if it causes too much discomfort, you may need to consider bi-focal glasses or a a poor, but probably comfortable Rx of:

OD Sphere -1.00, Cylinder -0.25 x 135

OS Sphere -1.50

You would still have monovision. but you right eye would not have to work quite so hard and you would begin conditioning your ciliary muscles. Later, the right Rx could be gradually increased until it was fully corrected.

I can understand the desire to avoid correction, but it really is not good to put it off because of the situation you are experiencing.

May I ask your age, occupation and gender?

C.


Amsterdamer 09 Oct 2007, 13:26

Cactus Jack

Hello. The new prescription has made a challenge for my -3 eye. I have worn them Sunday til today. When I put them on and take them off the vision in the -3 will change dramatically. I'd say it is like it jumps. After a moment or two it's okay. Obviously my vision is very good, I can see the small writing on the television now.

Without glasses it feels like the -3 eye is working hard and the other one does nothing, although I can see quite well with it so without glasses I don't feel (yet) so blind.

My colleague says it will come that I must wear these all the time because the difference is so big. What is your experience - I think you are quite experienced in eye care?


Amsterdamer 06 Oct 2007, 14:07

Cactus Jack

Again, thanks. I collected the glasses this afternoon - the optical shop gave no advice at all. Your comments about the muscles are a concern. I'll test the new glasses out tomorrow.


Cactus Jack 06 Oct 2007, 13:06

Amsterdamer,

Thanks, I was a little concerned about the increase in your right eye, but -1.25 in 5 years is not unreasonable.

Without correction, you effectively have monovision where you read with your right eye and use the left eye for distance (even though the left eye isn't 20/20). I urge you to wear your glasses of if you have a problem with that, get contacts. It is important that both eyes are working together like they are supposed to, even though it may intitally be uncomfortable. The problem with monovision at your age is that your ciliary muscles and crystaline lenses are not being used and are probably out of contition. This could ultimately lead to early symptoms of presbyopia and a requirement for multifocals before you ordinarily would.

C.


Amsterdamer 06 Oct 2007, 11:19

Cactus Jack

It is a long time since my last test perhaps as much as 5 years but I'm 28.

Yes the 'OD' eye is bad but the other is not so bad.


Cactus Jack 06 Oct 2007, 08:53

Amsterdamer,

I would suggest full time wear. There is enough difference to cause your eyes to not work together in a coordinated way. The brain will always select the clearest image as the primary and use the other image to try to add information, if possible, and ignore the rest. In this instance, there is a small difference in image size with glasses, but probably not enough to cause problems.

May I ask your age and how long ago your old Rx was prescribed.

C.


Amsterdamer 06 Oct 2007, 08:41

Cactus Jack

Thank you. The prescription is new. It says OD -3.25 x -0.25 x 135 OS -1.50

My old prescription is OD -2 OS -1.25

Thanks

A


Cactus Jack 06 Oct 2007, 08:10

Amsterdamer,

It sounds like a very large difference, however the terms 20/70 and 20/300 do not describe the actual refractive error which is very important.

It is likely that the individual has monovision without correction where the brain ignores the extremely blurry image from either the 20/300 eye or the 20/70 eye depending on the optical situation and if they are trying to see something close or distant.

They probably need full time correction, but even with that, they may not have stereoscopic vision because of the possible difference in image size and method of correction (contacts or glasses).

Could you provide a prescription?

C.


Amsterdamer 06 Oct 2007, 07:27

Hi

I read here recently that most people have a difference between their two eyes. Is 20/70 and 20/300 a big difference?

How much would someone with this wear glasses?

Thanks


specs4ever 06 Aug 2007, 17:34

No, I never did find there was a problem with double vision. Although, at that time I was still young enough that I had lots of accommodation.


Cactus Jack 06 Aug 2007, 16:25

Plus and Minus,

One thing I forgot to mention. You may be able to tell if you are surpressing one eye or actually fusing the images with the following test.

When the images appear to be fused, move your hand back and forth alternately covering one eye and then the other for about 1/2 second each eye. If the image jumps very much you may be surpressing the image from one eye. If it doesn't appear to jump much, you are probably fusing the images and using both eyes together as you should. There may be a very tiny jump because of the still differing image size.

C.


Cactus Jack 06 Aug 2007, 15:03

Plus and Minus,

I believe the very best situation would be for the images to be exactly the same size on the retina. Which I believe would be accomplished by what ever sphere value contact lens provides the same sphere value in both lenses in the glasses. Remember, however that your brain has no experience with that situation. I suspect that your brain has been using one eye or the other, but rarely both at the same time.

Isn't it interesting that with considerable effort you were able to fuse the images? It is likely that it has been many years (or maybe never) since you brain could even attempt it. What that means is that your brain CAN learn how to do it. Each time it will get easier. See, old dogs can learn new tricks! Learning may not as easy when we get older as it was when we were young, but we can still learn. But, what is the point. If the solution is to wear a contact and glasses, you might as well get the very best possible solution. That solution is the one that provides comfortable 2-eyed vision for all purposes.

BTW, for small amounts of prism, if that is what is needed, all they do is move the location of the optical center (adjust the PD) of the lenses in the frame, which is no big deal.

I am excited about your progress. I don't understand why the OD didn't match the sphere values in the glasses to start with. Maybe he didn't have the right value + lens in stock, which isn't much excuse. He may not be too accustomed to creative solutions to unusual vision problems. I understand that problem. Been there, done that.

C.


Plus and Minus 06 Aug 2007, 12:34

Visitor, Specs4ever, and Cactus Jack,

Thanks for the comments.

Visitor, as for possibly having to wear prism forever, that is ok with me if it is a good solution especially for reading. I am getting up in years and reading, which is my priority, has gotten terribly uncomfortable and slow. In factg it would be ok to wear glasses all the time. The contact was to even up the eyes.

Specs4ever, you at one time had a somewhat similar difference. Did you yourself experience prism glasses over the contact?

Cactus Jack, I tried by concentrating to make the double image go away. After a tremendous effort while focusing on one word, it did. I don't know if it went away because of convergence or suppression. But it seems unlikely that my brain would ever be able to adjust if it takes that much effort. After this experiment my right eye felt so stressed that I was afraid it would be dangerous to try the experiment again. However, when I blink, for a very time moment the double image is not present.

In your post where it says "... a different CL value that more closely matches the sphere value of each lens in the glasses will do it.

..." The near points when wearing the reading glasses over the contact seem to be about the same but the doctor put +2.50 in the left lens while only 1.50 in the right so the glasses lenses aren't as close as they could be. Are you saying that may be part of the problem?


Cactus Jack 05 Aug 2007, 06:28

Visitor,

Prism is useful for many purposes. In this case the amount of prism is likely to be very small.

The description of the problem was that "bed" looked like "bedd". That amount of displacement was about one letter width of (I assume) typical bookface type (about 2 mm)at a reading distance of 16 inches or 40 cm.

The definition of a prism diopter is that amount of prism which displaces a ray of light 1 cm (10 mm) at a distance of 1 meter (100 cm). If we do a little ciphering, one letter width would be about 2 mm at 40 cm would be the same as 5 mm at 100 cm or about 0.5 prism diopter of correction.

That amount of displacement is very small and would normally be easily resolved by the brain's slightly adjusting the convergence of the eyes. However, I suspect that because of years of dealing with or NOT dealing with impossible image fusion problems, Plus and Minus's brain doesn't have much experience "fine tuning" eye convergence. If he can get the image size problem under control, it is likely that in time, his brain will get more skilled at image fusion. If a little prism doesn't do the trick, I suspect that a different CL value that more closely matches the sphere value of each lens in the glasses will do it.

There seems to be an almost religious aversion to using prism, but in reality, it is just another tool. Prism, in this case, may help with eye postiioning and position control problems in ways that are similar to the ways that sphere and cylinder lenses help with refraction problems. Unfortunately, humans tend to get rather dependent on tools of all sorts to help them solve problems. It is surely a weakness.

C.


specs4ever 05 Aug 2007, 05:31

In this case the contact lens is used to reduce the difference in prescription between eyes. Over the years I have seen a number of people with large differences in their script, such as a young 16 year old girl at Seal Beach Pier one Sunday who had about -16 in one eye and -8 in the other. However, I am sure that she would have just ended up wearing contact lenses, rather than a lens in both eyes. At one time I had about -3.75D between both eyes, and I did wear a contact lens, but only in one eye.

So, done this way, prisms will work because they will be in the glasses. And you are correct about becoming dependant on prisms, but if they are needed to bring the vision to a proper point, then I agree with Cactus Jack that they should be tried. However this is not a person who is prescribing their own problems, but is actually trying to get a handle on what he should ask his doctor.


Visitor 05 Aug 2007, 03:39

Prism may well help you to focus on a single image, but if you start relying on prism correction you can say goodbye to contact lenses.Prisms are not easy to put into lenses and you will soon find that you need the prism correction all the time to focus on a single image.


Plus and Minus 04 Aug 2007, 10:52

Thanks for the info about prism.

There is no double image individually.

Hope to see the optometrist this week. I'll have an idea what to expect.


Cactus Jack 04 Aug 2007, 10:10

Plus and Minus,

Glad I was able to help some. Sounds like you are making progress in solving the problem. Don't give up.

Here is a quick test to see if you really are having trouble with fusing the two imges or if you are experiencing monocular dioplia (two images with one eye.

If you are experiencing the dioplia (e.g. "bed" appears as "bedd"). Try covering each eye individually with your hand. If the individual images are OK, a little bit of prism may help or a closer match of glasses Rx may solve the problem.

Lenses with prism are just thicker at one edge than at the other. The thicker edge is called the "Base". The location of the base depends on what is needed. It is prescribed as Base Out (BO), Base In (BI), Base Up (BU) or Base Down (BD). Prism is more moticable in minus lenses than plus lenses because of increase of edge thickness which is about 1 mm per diopter at the base edge (the edge opposite the base gets thinner). Actual thickness depends on lens size and index of refraction. Small amounts of prism are almost undetectable in plus lenses just by looking.

Your reading Rx with Base out prism might look like:

Left: +2.50 -1.50 X33 Prism 2 BO

Right: +1.50 -.50 X95 Prism 2 BO

If a little prism would help your reading, a quick test with a trial prism lens or a "prism bar" while you are wearing your reading glasses and contact should answer the question.

A Prism Bar is a plastic bar with a series of prisms of different values cut into it. It allows a quick trial of many different amounts of prism by just moving the bar up and down.

Small amounts of prism do not generally affect acuity. Large prism corrections can cause optical distortion in the glasses and resulting acuity problems if not prescribed and fitted correctly.

Large prism corrections are rarely needed today because corrective muscle surgery is relatively easy and usually successful. Prescribing and fitting large prism corrections may be a lost art.

C.


Plus and Minus 04 Aug 2007, 08:50

Problem: Horizontal diplopia

Here is a progress report - with more questions ! - pertaining to my situation which I posted on this thread on July 3.

Basically there is a 4.75 diopter sphere difference between the refractions of my eyes. Reading glasses were not satisfactory due to the difference between the lenses of the glasses. The plan was to wear one contact plus glasses to get the lenses more similar. Cactus Jack suggested a simple soft contact with CYL in the glasses.

Wearing now for reading:

Contact, Left: D +4.00 ACUVUE

Glasses

Left: +2.50 -1.50 X33

Right: +1.50 -.50 X95

The contact is very comfortable. But to my surprise there is a horizontal double image. For example, looking at "bed" I see "bedd". At intermediate even without the glasses there is a double image. At distance it is hard to tell.

Any comments about why this is and what solutions there might be will be appreciated. Is "prism" the solution and if so the only solution - I am not familiar with it but have started to look into it. What would a typical prism prescription look like? Does it degrade the quality?

P.S. here is a sort of cute animated diagram of what it is like to have lenses in glasses that are significantly different.

www.opticaldiagnostics.com/products/ai/aniseikonia.html


spexfan 10 Jul 2007, 06:36

Hmmm, interesting. How could an o.d. differentiate between pseudomyopia and myopia? And is there a point at which pseudomyopia develops into 'genuine' myopia?

I'm tempted to say that the myopia, though very slight, doesn't just appear immediately after doing near work. She mentioned she's had trouble seeing at night for some time.

I just thought that minus lenses, being as allegedly addictive as they are, could eventually lead to another diopter or so if she wears them a lot??


Tracker 10 Jul 2007, 06:34

Go Hercules,

Hope you found this site. On this site I go by Plus and Minus. My vison is very similar to yours. There are some posts below about it.

Current plan is to try a plain soft contact on +3.75 eye and no contact on the other. Put the cyl in glasses that will be worn over. Cactus Jack on this site has made contributions. Also of help was http://www.contactlensforums.com/default.asp?sub=show&action=posts&fid=7&tid=45040

Don't hesitate to discuss your situation.


correction 07 Jul 2007, 20:20

spexfan

It sounds like your wife has pseudomyopia.

The computer work that you wrote of has caused her eye muscles to "stick". She should be wearing a +.50 while doing closework to relax the muscles. She should see another doctor and lose the distance glasses


Phil 06 Jul 2007, 01:57

I think myopia progession is unpredictable. I've gone up from -2 to -4 between the ages of 25 and 50. And I know someone who has -3.5s at 43 and wasn't even a gwg at 25: and lovely she is too! Her rx is going up by about .25 every year or 18 months at the moment.


DelDoc 05 Jul 2007, 15:53

At the age of 27, she should expect her myopia to stay relatively stable. I certainly wouldn't think that it would progress by a diopter or two.


Cactus Jack 05 Jul 2007, 10:02

spexfan,

It will probably increase some, maybe a diopter or two. It depends on many factors, but genetics is the most important. Are any close relatives nearsighted?

C.


spexfan 05 Jul 2007, 08:01

My girlfriend, who's almost 27, has just been prescribed -.5 sph in each eye. First glasses for her, which is exciting for all concerned. She seems happy to wear them when necessary, particularly at night - though not fulltime as the rx is still fairly insignificant at this stage. She is, however, also wearing them when doing computer work, which she does a lot of.

So my question is how her rx might progress over, say, the next ten years. Some anectdotal evidence would be great.


Plus and Minus 04 Jul 2007, 18:10

Cactus Jack

O.K.


Plus and Minus 04 Jul 2007, 17:59

Speculate

If your distance prescription is +1.00 and +1.25, and you are 39, then my prediction is it will stay about the same for 25 years.

My distance prescription including hyperopia at an exam a couple of months ago was so close to the glasses I brought in that the optometrist said I probably wouldn't want to fill it though there was a small difference. The glasses are over 20 years old (frames not in good condition); I got them when I was about your age. In my teens, 20s, 30s my eyes changed a lot. Since age 40 they have been stable.

The way refraction is done is sort of crude. One year there may be a .25 or even .50 change in one direction; then the next year it will be back to where it was before. That's how it goes.

The problem with hyperopia is that near vision on the average gets difficult at an earlier age than among people who are plano or myopic. Myopic people tend to have reading ability later in life than plano or hyperopics. I have one hyperopic and one myopic eye. Without glasses I can still read, if I have to and not up close, with the myopic eye but haven't been able to read with hyperopic for many years.

Your eye strain is at near distances without glasses, isn't it? Is it better when you take long drives? You probably could use reading glasses for comfort. The prescription for them will change with time because of the tendency we all have to gradually lose focusing ability - but that doesn't influence distance vision.

Maybe I am wrong but I think "latent hyperopia" is an issue only with some kids.

If you are from the USA, happy Fourth. If not, then the best to you anyway!


Cactus Jack 04 Jul 2007, 13:45

Plus and Minus,

If Wurm will let this be posted, please contact me at cactusjack1928@hotmail.com.

BTW, I'm nearly 70 and live in Houston.

C.


Plus and Minus 04 Jul 2007, 13:06

Cactus Jack,

It has been a long time since I last had contacts. I tried 3 technologies at different times with 3 different people: plain RGP, Soft(toric?), and toric RGP. For RGP and toric RGP they both did plain RGP first; the left lens would not stay centered; then they both increased diameter; left still wouldn't center. One guy gave up. When the other guy finally went to toric RGP the left was centered fairly well - as I recall.

The soft were my least favorite. The vision in the left eye was never good. They were hard to put in and a lot of money was spent on pure water. Of course, that was what now would be 15-year-old technology.

That's why I've been thinking of getting Toric RGP to begin with.

When you say torics are hard to keep in place is that soft or RGP? Do you happen to know what the maximum plus correction is for RGP and soft nowadays? I agree the astig correction could be put in the glasses. And putting a bit more plus for example 4.75 could be handled at distance with -1.00 in each lens. From playing with these reading lenses I actually think I could use a little more plus in left eye for reading assuming I get a contact.

In previous attempts I wore contacts on both eyes. Having only one contact may improve the odds of success because when a person has different shaped eyes with contact lenses of different shapes and weights, the contacts are never in synch in the way they move so the person rarely sees through the center of both lenses at the same time. At least that's my theory.

Age: 64. San Antonio, USA. Why? Do you know a super contacts person around here? And, by the way, are you involved in some vision field? I see a lot of posts.

It was the first visit to this optometrist. After the research I'll run it by him. He apparently thought I should keep doing what I've been doing which is very unsatisfactory and gets more so with the years. He was on a tight schedule and no doubt not expecting someone with wierd vision. That doesn't let him off the hook entirely but I will give him another chance.

If you are from the USA, happy Fourth. If not, the best to you anyway.


Speculate 04 Jul 2007, 07:31

i have wondered if someone would care to have a stab in the dark as to what the prescription may progress to for someone who was non cyclopleged at the age of 39 revealing 1 and 1.25D of hyperopia,with only eyestrain as a symptom currently.Is it possible that there is a fair bit of latency to come out or will this likely be the first and final script?


Cactus Jack 03 Jul 2007, 12:16

Plus and Minus,

The 4.75 D difference is probably causing most of your problems because of the different image sizes on the retina. The Astigmatism, while important, in probably not causing much problem if it is corrected.

A +3.75 soft contact to correct the sphere in the left eye would probably be useful. It would even be worth considering a bit more in the left eye to make the image size equal. You could then correct both with low minus glasses with some cylinder for the astigmatism. Toric contacts are hard to keep in place at low cylinders.

May I ask your age and where you live?

Also, you might consider seeing another Eye Care Professional.

C.


PlusAndMinus 03 Jul 2007, 10:22

Prescriptions from a recent eye exam:

Distance

Left +3.75-1.50 X35 Right -1.00-.50 X95

added 1.50 2.50

Reading

Left +5.25-1.50 X35 Right +1.50-.50 X95

The difference between left and right for distance is 4.75

for reading is 3.75.

Notice that the amount added to the left happens to be the same as the final reading for the right, 1.50.

I wonder what might make reading more comfortable. It seems, without discussing this with the Dr yet, that it would be a big improvement if the left eye could be lasered, molded or corrected by contact lens; then reading glasses could be used with the same correction for each eye.

One image is larger than the other which causes difficulty when looking from point A on, say, the left to point B on the right. The eyes have to move in a very unnatural way. There is double vision for a moment on the left end of each line. On the right end it feels like the eyes are trying to cross.

The glasses really cannot be used for reading. But they are good when staring at a single word. The doctor wasn't inclined to give me a reading prescription but I wanted to be able to experiment.

If that left eye correction, +3.75 -1.50 X 35, could be eliminated, reading glasses of +1.50 could be used for each eye.

According to internet searches the limit for molding is +3.00 so that won't work. Don't know yet the maximum correctable by laser or contact. Does anyone know if that much farsightedness and astigmatism can be corrected by laser? And can a rigid toric lens correct that amount of error? Or any other ideas for making reading more comfortable?


JayBee 15 May 2007, 15:27

C:

If I recall correctly, there were definitely no fingers held up for me to count -- on that exam or on any I'd ever had before. My left eye was (still is) definitely more myopic than the right, which is why the surgeon made it my "reading" eye.

I would never have gone out without my glasses, but I rarely wore them at home or in the confines of my office at work (hated the things); so I wasn't blind. But, maybe I was using monovision naturally. It's all fine now, so I'll never know.


C 15 May 2007, 11:50

JayBee

I have very high myopia and I remember a few years ago, when seeing a consultant for the first time, being asked to try to count his fingers without my glasses.


JayBee 15 May 2007, 06:16

Puffin: I have no idea how far. I certainly don't remember anyone ever doing a "finger counting" test before.

Cactus Jack: I found the following explanation in a study done in Tehran. Interesting...

"An optometrist determines the visual acuity by using a NIDEK chart projector (CP 670 20/1020/400; Nidek Co, Gamagori, Japan) with tumbling E letters at a distance of 4 meters. Best spectacle corrected and uncorrected visual acuity tests are performed separately for each eye (one eye at a time). Presenting visual acuity is measured with the participant's habitual distance correction. Lensometry is performed by an optometrist for those who use glasses. Visual acuity is recorded as the smallest line in which the patient can read the four letters correctly. If the person is unable to read the largest E letters in the chart (20/400 E letters) at 4 meters, then finger counting is done at 1 meter. The examiner stands one meter in front of the participant and asks if the participant can see his/her hand."

Thanks for your help everyone.


Puffin 15 May 2007, 05:33

Finger counting at what distance?


DelDoc 15 May 2007, 04:38

FC = finger counting

CF = counting fingers


Cactus Jack 14 May 2007, 21:43

JayBee,

I don't know, I was trying to establish a context that would make sense. You might try checking Google or other search engine under Medical Abbeviations and see if any of those listed make sense.

C


JayBee 14 May 2007, 19:21

Cactus Jack,

I had monovision correction done so that I could avoid reading glasses for a while. This was 7 years ago. At the time I was wearing bifocals with no correction on the bottom.

My right eye refraction was -3.0 with uncorrected accuity 20/400 and corrected 20/25+

My left eye refraction was -3.5 +.5 x 87 with uncorrected accuity 20/FC (?) and corrected 20/20(-2)(That's a superscripted "-2").

Following Lasik, my right (distance)eye is 20/25 (+2) refraction is plano +.25 x 120.

My left (reading) eye is 20/150 refraction is -1.75 +0.75 x 62

I am at the point where I need reading glasses when I don't have enough light, but I can still read the labels in the supermarket. Also, strangely enough, my night vision actually improved following the procedure -- a very pleasant surprise, since it was horrible when I wore glasses.

Do you know what the FC stands for?


Cactus Jack 14 May 2007, 17:54

JayBee,

What was your quality of vision in your left eye prior to lasik and what is the quality of vision after.

C.


DelDoc 14 May 2007, 17:46

FC = finger counting

CF = counting fingers


JayBee 14 May 2007, 08:40

Quick question: I was just going over a note from the guy who did my Lasik surgery to my optometrist. He wrote my "Prior to surgery" vision as:

OD UCVA 20/400 and OS UCVA 20/FC

That's only part of what he put down, and I understand the refraction part. But, does anyone know what the heck the FC stands for?


JOHN 10 May 2007, 18:01

Thanks


Cactus Jack 10 May 2007, 17:09

John,

Possibly. It might be better to make sure exactly what is happening, there are many different causes. In some situations prism can help by reducing the work the positioning muscles have to do, but they are not always a perfect solution. Prism can introduce undesired optical effects such as color fringing and adjusting the Pupiliary Distance of the glasses so the line of vision and the optical center of the lens is coincident is also important for the best vision. An Eye Care Professional with experience and knowledge of muscle problems can usually help. Even though she is an adult, a Pediatric Opthalmologist who also treats Adult Strabismus (muscle imbalance) would be a good ECP to consult.

C.


JOHN 10 May 2007, 16:09

Thanks Catus Jack.

Forgot to say she has trifocals for 4 years now .the problem only seems to be in her right eye do you think having a prisim lens for her right eye would help


Cactus Jack 10 May 2007, 15:28

Eyescene Friends,

I hope i have not led John astray. I felt like he was seeking to understand his GF's situation rather than try to tell her doctor what he/she ought to do.

Please feel free to criticize or comment if my explanation was inappropriate, incrooect, or incomplete.

C.


Cactus Jack 10 May 2007, 15:13

John,

Part 1 of 3

Im not an Eye Care Professional, but maybe I can help you understand your girlfriends situation. She has moderate hyperopia which is also called long or farsightedness.

A low hyoerope may be able to see very distant objects clearly, but their focusing muscles in the eye must work very hard to do it. Sort of like a person with normal vision trying hard to read somthing just 2 or 3 inches in front of their eyes. A moderate hyperope, like your girlfriend, probably cannot make distant objects focus at all, without wearing plus lenses, in her case +5.50.

-continued-


Cactus Jack 10 May 2007, 15:13

John,

Part 2 of 3

It is not unusual for some hyperopes to have problems with their eyes trying to cross. This is caused by a coupling mechanism in almost everyones brain that causes your eyes to turn inward (converge) when you focus on something close. This is so you dont see double when you try to read. Because a hyperope eye muscles have to work extra hard all the time, sometimes the convergence mechanism gets rather powerful and the inside eye positioning muscles want to pull inward when they shouldnt. The outside muscles can sometimes fight the inside muscles, but like all muscles, they will get tired after a while and the eyes turn inward. It is called Fatigue Esophoria.

-continued-


Cactus Jack 10 May 2007, 15:12

John

Part 3 of 3

One way to minimize the inward turning tendency is to try to keep the focusing muscles relaxed so they dont trigger the convergence effect. That is done with bifocals, so the focus muscle doesnt have to work to focus to read. In your GFs situation, the +3.00 add does that.

If your GF is having some problems as you describe, it could mean that she needs a bit more + for distance. Or, perhaps she could benefit from tri-focals, so she doesnt have to work to focus at intermediate distances.

Her eye doctor knows what to do. I would suggest that she schedule an appointment and tell him what is happening.

I hope this is helpful.

C.


Julian 10 May 2007, 11:28

'Solicitors think they can be barristers; nurses think they can be doctors etc etc.'

Yes Phil. Twice recently I've had prescriptions written and signed by practice nurses; but It doesn't worry me unduly. I can remember junior hospital doctors telling me that if the outpatient sister said, "Are you going to do so-and-so, doctor?" they'd better do it.


Phil 10 May 2007, 09:33

How right you are EHPC. But it isn't the modern view. I first realised that when I drafted the provisions (in Mrs Thatcher's time) allowing reading specs to be sold on market stalls. And it's been downhill ever since! Solicitors think they can be barristers; nurses think they can be doctors etc etc. Of course, there are some aspects of what is discussed here in relation to which we ARE the experts. Not the technical stuff but the feely side that does not interest the professionals.


ehpc 10 May 2007, 08:37

Curt is right. There is no field of human endeavour where an 'amateur' or dilletante can ever know more than 1% of what a professional in the same field knows.


Curt 10 May 2007, 07:49

cut-in UK: Understood. I have been contributing to Eye Scene for about 9 1/2 years now. I have a strong scientific background, and am fascinated with all things optical - lenses, glasses, microscopes, telescopes, prisms, holograms, etc. My point is that it seemed inappropriate for someone to ask a group of people that he does not even know on the Internet what an eyecare professional should be doing about his girlfriend's eye turning in. I am well aware that there is huge amount of expertise in this group; I consider myself part of that group. But last I checked, none of us are practicing optometrists, opthomologists, or even opticians. We all share a keen interest in eyeglasses and vision, but that is what it is...an interest.


Connie 09 May 2007, 16:42

Just back from the optical shop this afternoon. When I told them that I had blurry vision with the Freshlook one day 0.00 contacts they sold to me they did a measurement on my eyes through a machine which found that I was not nearsighted at all but had flat corneas. Thus I do not need glasses. I put on a pair of the contacts and they remeasured me in the machine which found that I need -.75 power in the contacts. They showed the results to their doctor who said that I could exchange the 0.00 lenses for -.75 power if I want to continue to use the contacts. Because of the way the lenses fit on my corneas there is induced nearsightedness when I wear these lenses. They had to order the -.75 lenses for me.


cut-in UK  09 May 2007, 15:24

I don't wish to criticise your perception of eyescene Curt; however I think you will find that very few of the regular contributors to 'eyescene' have merely "a casual intrest in glasses" there are several technical 'masters' and an equal number of gifted amateurs with more than a little acquired knowledge in matters optical. Lets face it, this is a collection of seriously keen optic obsessives. Will those who are not, please press the 'NO' button now! We welcome and encourage all those who have a similar interest.


 08 May 2007, 14:47

My wife once tried coloured contacts with no prescription and had a similar problem to the one below because the centre of the lens did not have a hole in it but was like a plano glass effect ( or a thin film if that makes sense ) I think the 'costume' lenses you can buy have a hole to 'see through' so they don't effect your vision.


Curt 08 May 2007, 13:34

John: Let me get this straight...you are asking a bunch of people with a casual interest in glasses and vision what to tell your girlfriend's eye care professional??? Something seems a bit off here...


JOHN 08 May 2007, 10:24

My girlfriend wears +5.50 add 3.00 glasses. when she gets tired her right eye turns in what should the eye doctor do to stop this


Sophie 08 May 2007, 00:59

If I have one eye that is 100% corrected and the other is -2, what does that mean my visual acuity is? I have lost a contact lens and am interested in what that means my overall vision is.


Cactus Jack 07 May 2007, 16:03

Connie,

You could still in fact have a small amount of myopia that would not show up in bright light with your friends glasses. If the contacts are in fact 0.00 you might want a professonal exam with dilation to check absolutely. If you do decide to get an exam, tell the examiner what happened and take the contacts with you.

C.


Connie 07 May 2007, 15:24

Thanks for everyone's help. My roomate let me use her old glasses which are too mild for her. She said that the right lens was -.75 and the left -1.25. I tried these glasses last night without the colored contacts and I could not see any better with them on. My naked eyes saw just as good in the distance without them. I then put on a pair of the 0.00 colored lenses and my long distance vision beyond 4 to 5 feet was fuzzy. However with her old glasses on top of these contacts the distance vision cleared up. I think I have to go back to the optical shop and exchange these contacts.


Cactus Jack 05 May 2007, 21:20

Emily,

Excellent thnking

C.


Emily 05 May 2007, 20:34

Hi Connie,

I have a theory as to why you see better with the minus 1 lens. Lenses absorb most of the light but reflect some. Therefore, the image you see through a lens isn't a bright as without. If things are not as bright, your iris opens wider to let more light in, which reduces your depth of field and blurs your vision.

If you see better through a -1 lens, why not get a pair of them for yourself? It's a very weak lens and couldn't hurt your eyes.

Good luck.


Hansel 05 May 2007, 15:37

Is it possible that having "seen great" wearing the -1.00 lenses, suddenly you are surprised that you don't see as well with the planos.

I appreciate that you say that without them everything is great, but could it be that actually what you have really noticed is that -1.00 makes a difference to you?

Just a thought.


Cactus Jack 05 May 2007, 14:49

Connie,

What you described would cccur if the lenses supposedly without a prescription, in fact had a plus prescription. Check the box carefully is the prescription maked Plano or 0.00 in addtion to Diameter and Base Curve?

You can estimate the amount of plus (assuming you in fact you have 20/20 vision) by dividing the distance from your eyes to the most distant object you can see clearly into 1 meter or 3.28 feet depending on your prefered units of mesure. For example, if things become blurry at about 1 meter or about 3 feet. 1/1 = +1.00 diopter or 3.28/3 = 1.09 or + 1 diopter.

Let me know if you need help estimating the power of the lenses.

C.


Connie 05 May 2007, 11:28

I am confused. I have never been prescribed glasses but recently tried some colored contacts. My roomate who has worn contacts and glasses for years recently got some FreshLook one day colored contacts. Her right eye was -1.00 and the left was -2.50. The gray color looked great on her eyes. She gave me a pair of her right lenses -1.00's to try and I loved the color as well. I could also see with these lenses. I wore them out one night and had no trouble with them. I went to the optical shop to buy some of my own and got the same type of lens with no prescription. However, the next time I wore them out at night everything seemed blurry in the distance. Without the lenses I see just fine. I tried another pair of my roomates lenses -1.00's and saw great with them. Yet I don't need glasses and see well when not wearing lenses.

What is wrong with the plain colored contact lenses?


Marthe 28 Apr 2007, 14:13

Hi

No that's definately not the reason. I could comfortably wear them all day except that I would take them off as habit. So nosepads is nothing to do with my issue!


lazysiow 28 Apr 2007, 13:55

I have a theory for this. Maybe they aren't the best fitting, i.e. for me most of the time the nosepads are too big. Actually I probably notice more about different types of nosepads than anyone else, but anyway.. my first pair even though reading and computer work gave me eyestrain I put up with it even with glasses because essentially they were uncomfortable. It took I think my 3rd pair (which was the same as my second one) with different nosepads for me to go full time as they were really comfortable and fit well.


Marthe 28 Apr 2007, 13:43

Hi Im fascinated by when and how much people wear their glasses. Im at a stage when I wonder if Im unusual in not wearing mine more, judging by friends and wonder why is it that I am happy to wander around at home with slightly fuzzy things when friends of mine with similar prescriptions cant do without their glasses? My prescription is -2 and -3, I cant watch TV comfortably without them I can see theres something there, but couldnt read any text I need them for driving too. I could happily wear them more, my glasses look great, so am I strange to put up with things inside the house that are slightly out of focus or is it usual for someone with my prescription. Im not blind without them (obviously) and Ive been told that my better eye compensates for the worse, but am I being stupid not to get the best possible vision all the time? My guess is its a subjective thing but Id like to know what others here think too. Thanks


Random_eye 21 Mar 2007, 12:29

I guess its for what you should see if you where over corrected. Which I am and I don't see what it says I should see. I am probably still to young for that right now.


Guest 21 Mar 2007, 11:30

I tried it and really didn't get the 'glasses with the wrong prescription' option. What's that about?


Tod 21 Mar 2007, 11:20

yes, I really like Tammy too. Guess we all miss her. I tried emailing her a couple of times but no responce. Please say hi, Tammy.


Andrew 21 Mar 2007, 10:32

The real shame with anything like this is that you cannot put on a pair of glasses of the strength you have just entered and see the letters clearly.


Willy 21 Mar 2007, 08:38

Was trolling around and found the following link to a vision simulator I had not seen before...

http://www.billauer.co.il/simulator.html


Puffin 20 Mar 2007, 05:36

Haven't heard from Tammy in ages, how are you doing if you are still out there(?)


Cactus Jack 18 Mar 2007, 16:19

Lentifan,

Please contact me at cactusjack1928@hotmail.com

C.


lentifan 18 Mar 2007, 15:33

Cactus Jack

Thank you for that response. You seem to confirm what I thought was the case.

The reason I asked is that I expect in the forseeable future to have cataracts removed and I am considering refusing implants, so that I can wear strong glasse. I am only slightly minus at present and I would hope to acquire by this means a moderate plus.


Cactus Jack 18 Mar 2007, 15:09

Lentifan,

One more thing, my night vision is excellent. Maybe even better than before.

C.


Cactus Jack 18 Mar 2007, 15:07

Lentifan,

I have had cataract surgery with my natural lenses removed and replaced with artifical lenses. Prior to the procedure, they used an untrasound device to measure the length of my eyeballs, and the thickness of my corneas and crystaline lenses. Using this information they calculated the power of the new lens required to to get me close to 20/20 or whatever I wanted. I chose monovision with a target of 0.00 in one eye and -1.50 in the other. The idea being that if I go up at night, I could function fairly well without bothering to find my glasses.

Because the new lenses are available in 0.50 D increments and they have no effect on astigmatism which is in the cornea, I wound up with +0.25 in one eye and -1.25 in the other with a little astigmatism.

With glasses, I have almost 20/15 acuity, with normal visual fields. I am slightly sensitive to bright sunshine because the artificial lenses are actually 6% more efficient in light transmission than natural lenses. They also block most UV whcih doesn't hurt anything.

The only downside is that I need trifocals, but I needed them before the surgery so no big deal.

Hope this was helpful information.

I have been thinking of writing up the whole thing as a true adventure, I don't know if Bobby would be interested or not.

C.


lentifan 18 Mar 2007, 13:03

I have a question. If the natural lens is removed from an eye (lensectomy) and replaced with a spectacle lens of the correct power, is there any loss of visual acuity?

I can understand that there will be a loss of the field of vision, due to the magnification effect of the plus lens and distortion away from the centre of the lens, but my question relates to the visual acuity at the centre of the lens.


Brian-16 16 Feb 2007, 11:30

HipChick-I am corrected only to 20/25,but then my rx is high around-13 with astigmatism.


Random_eye 15 Feb 2007, 10:47

With an RX that low I would think you should be able to get 20/20 vision. I am not 100% sure how much it would take.

I think it can make more of a difference with people who have much high RXs.


HipChick 15 Feb 2007, 09:47

-2.25 is the tricky one. Does it make a difference?

I'm 29


Random_eye 15 Feb 2007, 09:40

I think it depends on the person. Not everyone is correctable to 20/20. But someone else here and probably better answer your question.

Whats your age and RX?


HipChick 15 Feb 2007, 09:05

If I can only read the 20/30 with glasses on, how much stronger would I need an extra -.25 or -.50?


Vic 08 Dec 2006, 22:27

Smudgeur they are your wifes eyes. No one can make her not wear the glasses that is her choice :) Plus I'm sure if she went to a big chain store most likely that they would still prescribe her glasses. So she shouldn't worry really


Tod 08 Dec 2006, 18:21

http://www.thineyeglasses.com/csi/info/high-index.asp


Julian 02 Dec 2006, 09:41

Smudgeur: compare the discussion on the 'Hyperopia & presbyopia Progression' thread.


Smudgeur 02 Dec 2006, 02:15

interesting link to an abstract of an article about when glasses will be prescribed:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1475-1313.2003.00137.x/abs/

This subject has always interested me as my wife has a prescription of:

+0.75 -0.25

+0.50 -0.50

I've always known she is borderline for needing them and dread her going for an eyetest as they may tell her not to wear her glasses anymore (she wears them full time to please me!) :-)

Anyone got the full text of this paper?


Julian 30 Nov 2006, 16:34

Tod: Wurm no longer accepts fiction one EyeScene, so there's really no point in suggesting it - and there are other excellent sites that do.


Puffin 28 Nov 2006, 18:01

I've thought of writing something along those lines, but where's the time?


Tod 28 Nov 2006, 14:53

There used to be some pretty good fiction writers posting to this thread.

I have an idea for a title if some good writer can write the play.

its this "Diary of a Nearsighted Hooker"

Any takers? for the story, I mean.


OttO 15 Oct 2006, 19:59

Wayne - Thanks for some interesting observations. I can certainly relate to your experience. I did get weaker lenses shortly after my eye exam in early 2005 (at age 56). I was not seeing very well with my distance lenses and was tilting my head back to see middle distances with my bifocal reading lenses. Pain in the neck!

I went L from -4.75 to -3.00 (I might have been a little overcorrected) and R from -3.50 to -3.00. And it was 8 years since my previous exam! It will be interesting to see if my RX decreases any in the future.

Although I'm a myope I did get the tripple whammy - trifocals. To top it off I've now got correction for astigmatism (which I didn't have previously) so it's now more comfortable reading with my glasses than without.


Wayne 15 Oct 2006, 18:59

I believe that it's very common for myopia to decrease as presbyopia sets in. Over the last 12 or 13 years my distance Rx has decreased from a high of L-7, R-6.50 to L-5, R-4.

In a similar manner, someone who has been emetropic and never previously needed correction may find that at a certain age they need not only reading glasses but some correction for distance as well.

A hyperopic person can get a triple whammy. Not only bifocals for reading but also a stronger distance Rx and a greater dependence on glasses because they can no long accomodate for distance as they could when younger.

It sort of evens things out. When younger many hyperopes can function quite well for distance in many situations where even a low to moderate myope would might difficulty. When older, however, the hyperope becomes more dependent on glasses while a myope has improved distance vision and the ability to read bare-eyed without glasses. Of course, anyone with a very high Rx + or - would always be dependent on correction.

Otto, I would recommend getting the weaker lenses as long as they give you 20/20 vision. You are, in effect, somewhat hyperopic while wearing your current glasses. This puts strain on your eyes to accomodate for the excess minus and could lead to headaches before long. Also, as the presbyopia increases, you will eventually find that distance is not clear with the too strong prescription.

I first realized that my myopia had decreased when I found that I could see distance better by tilting my head to look through the intermediate part of my progressive lenses. I still need glasses full time to function adequately for distance but find I can now read at a comfortable distance without glasses. I'm still sometimes surprised to find I can see things without having to get as close as I once did. I'm 64 by the way. Nearsightedness set in when I was 10 and presbyopia in my mid-40's.


Cactus Jack 08 Oct 2006, 10:10

I wonder if the reduction in myopia could be caused by relaxation of the crystaline lens and ciliary muscles Perhaps caused by fatigue. There is such a thing as pseudo myopia "induced" or otherwise.

Myopia is generally thought to be caused by excessive eyeball length for the optical power of the cornea, crystaline lens, and there is also and element of refractive power of the fluids in the eyeball. The refractive index of the Vitreous Humor and other eye fluids can change as glucose content changes. Diabetics with uncontrolled blood glucose experience problems with 1 to 2 Diopter Rx changes over relatively short periods of time and some even have several pairs of glasses with different Rx.

If you are experiencing sudden changes in Rx, a quick, easy, and almost painless blood glucose check would be worthwhile.

C.


OttoO 08 Oct 2006, 10:04

Nice to see we've got company!


Rio 08 Oct 2006, 08:33

I had a similar experience and went from -4 to -3 almost overnight. It was a strange experience going from feeling pretty blind to only mildly blind but can only be a good thing. Same thing happened to one of my colleagues who went from -3 to -2 and is nearly free of her glasses and very pleased.


OttO 07 Oct 2006, 22:16

Merrill. You don't tell us your age, but you say you can see just fine with your too strong lenses. You must have quite a bit of accomodation yet. If it were me I would just keep the lenses and go on my merry way with them. Enjoy them and save yourself some money! As far as we know it's not going to do you any harm. (I'm no expert. It's just what I've read and learned from EyeScene et al.) As for me, I'm past 50 and my accomodation is going. The lack of ability to see through my now too strong lenses is what finally got me to go for an exam. With weaker lenses I'm able to focus normally again. The result of advancing presbyopia is that I've advanced from bifocals to trifocals. The only real change I've noticed is that without glasses I can see a bit further without poking my nose into what I'm trying to see. My RX may have gone down some, but I do like the trifocals.

Enjoy the stronger lenses while you can. The time will come when you can't.


Merrill 07 Oct 2006, 14:48

OttO

Wow that sort of problem didn't come up. In fact it was positioned as something I should really be pleased by. Funny thing is that I still seem to be able to see fine through my now too strong lenses. Because of that there doesn't seem to be any rush to pick out new frames. Should I go ahead and get the weaker lenses as I see just as fine as I ever did?

Your prescription is stronger than mine but did you notice any benefit from the reduction? Should I be prepared to be able to go without glasses sometimes or isn't the reduction that signficant?


OttO 06 Oct 2006, 19:38

Merrill

The same thing happened to me last year. Decrease in myopia, that is. Of course I went some 8 years between exams and had a significant increase in both presbyopia and astigmatism. I went from R -3.5 to -3.0 and L from -4.75 to -3.0 (It's possible my left eye could have been a bit over corrected.) Any way, the opthalmologist says that for the myopia to decrease is not all uncommon. More recently I have read that decreasing myopia may be related to onset of type 2 diabetes (growth of veins in the eyes). I'm not sure of the veracity of this. However it may be a warning sign!


Merrill 06 Oct 2006, 13:22

Hi there. I wanted to post that my prescription has dropped somewhat and I wondered if that was considered unusual. I have gone from -3.25 and -3 to -3 and -2.25. It seems like a huge drop to me. At least -2.25 seems very low from what I'm used to. I'm not sure how much that even means I'll need glases, although I realise I still have one eye that's pretty bad. I'd really like to hear if anyone else here has had a similar experience. Thanks.


Tod 30 Sep 2006, 17:21

I don't think so. I have worn both larger dia. soft lenses and smaller dia. soft lenses that were the same size as corneas. But the larger dia. lens is much more comfortable to wear and stays in place better.


tinyeyes 30 Sep 2006, 16:00

I have a question. I usually post only on the "Guys with Glasses" thread, but this is a little more general so I will ask here: Are soft contact lenses with high minus prescriptions usually smaller in diameter than lower minus contacts? I have this idea in my mind, and I'm not sure where it came from. When I see contacts in a guy's eyes, I'm always looking for clues to their prescription. Sometimes the edge of the lens goes way beyond the iris, and sometimes it is only a little bigger. Does anyone know?


Thomas 29 Sep 2006, 21:59

Thank you Matthew. Your post is most informative. Also today it is harder to spot a bifocal wearer because most wear in (plus or minus Rx) progressive lenses. The only exception is in mild plus Rx's when viewed from behind, the mild progressive lens has a "funhouse mirror" affect.


matthew 27 Sep 2006, 23:28

continued...I've known a few girls who were farsighted. It seems like (in my circle of friends and acquaintances, which - again - is about 75% myopic) myopes outnumber them by maybe 10 to 1 or so. So out of every 40 people, 30 would be myopic, maybe 3 would be hyperopic, 6 would have "normal" (hee hee...doesn't sound very normal to me) vision, maybe 1 would have something else - astigmatism without significant myopia or hyperopia, or another less common eye disorder.

I wonder, though, if there aren't a lot more latent hyperopes out there than I realize. My 'real' prescription is about -3, but for the past couple years I've normally worn -8 glasses. And while I sometimes find it difficult to focus at first, I have rarely experienced any eyestrain-related discomfort. After a few minutes, they feel comfortable and normal and my vision is fine. So as far as my eyes' lenses go, this is a lot like being a +4 hyperope. And the hyperopic people I've seen have been +4 or less, not more than that. So I wonder if there aren't a lot of hyperopes who are fairly young with a significant 'real' prescription but who never use correction. So those who do use correction are those who find it relatively difficult to deal with the constant accommodation. This would be consistent with something else I've noticed among reports on this site from "latent hyperopes": it's common for them to move to bifocals fairly soon after starting to wear glasses. That would make sense, since I'm suggesting that most young hyperopes who use correction are those who have relatively poor accommodation (compared to the majority).

Obviously, a lot of this is spec-ulative and it's almost all anecdotal. So it can't really be taken too seriously.


matthew 27 Sep 2006, 23:28

Tod...you asked about the percentage of women who wear glasses, and the break down by Rx type: myopia; hyperopia; astigmatism; full time wear and degree of Rx ; etc.

I've never seen any particularly good data about this. There was a post on this site maybe a month or two ago (I forget which thread) in which someone reported a breakdown by Rx.

My experience between looking around reading, etc, is that the answers vary a LOT depending on demographics. As far as I know, there isn't a big difference between men and women. Certain Asian countries supposedly are about 80% nearsighted. I've read that about 25% of Americans are nearsighted...but among my friends (Americans, mostly white, 20s and 30s, who mostly went to pretty intense colleges) the number is more like 75%. One thing that makes it tricky is that most nearsighted young women wear contacts. For example, of 15 friends/girlfriends of mine, 12 of them were nearsighted...of those 12, all but one wore contacts at least a fair amount of the time, and only two or three others wore glasses more than on a rare occasion. (By the way, since so many of them wear contacts, and since I really don't think I can tell most of the time whether someone wears contacts, I am pretty sure that my being an OO didn't really contribute to ending up getting close to so many nearsighted women. I could be wrong, of course...) Although I'm not sure, I don't think all that many people I know have had LASIK. I think among friends and acquaintances, I know of 5 (out of maybe 100 who I know well enough to know whether they had it done). But there are statistics on how many people have had the procedure - I just haven't seen them.

As for bifocals, I don't think I remember a gwg in her 20s or early 30s who wore bifocals. A couple girls in high school did - I think because they had eye doctors who believed it could help limit progression of myopia. I did have a friend (about 26 yrs old)once whose eye doctor was considering prescribing bifocals because she was having trouble with eyestrain at work (engineer - lots of computer work and detailed drawings, reading, etc), but I think she waived that off. Since she was about a -2 or so, she could probably just take her glasses off. It seems from my experience like bifocals are rare for people in their 20s (like 1 in 100 or less), though there have been quite a few posts on this site by such people. So I'm curious. There is definitely an attitude that bifocals are for old people, which is a pretty damaging attitude for any young person who needs them to see better.


Thomas  26 Sep 2006, 22:04

Also Astigmatism is due to the cornea of the eye or in some rare cases the retina to be shaped like an (American) football - 0 - instead of being shaped like a socker or basketball - O -. This causes light to be focused in more than one point on the retina. So yes, a "shadow" affect when reading a printed page or simular symptoms such as one eye seeing color shaded slightly differently than the other eye, is likely caused by astigmatism.


Thomas 26 Sep 2006, 21:49

Jane your vision is somewhat rare in that one eye is myopic and the other is hyperopic. Though I did know two people who has this condition. The one fellow never liked to wear his glasses but the other, a young woman almost never took her's off. You are fortunate in that your Rx is mild because too great a difference in Rx for each eye leads one eye to do all the work while the other eye may atrophy after time. Astigamtism is a very common condition and most people needing glasses for other eye disorder such as myopia also have some degree of astigmatism. As for prisms, they are used to correct stabismus also known as cross eyes. Sense light through a prism always bends toward the base of the prism it allows a person who's eye may turn outward to see straight ahead when a prism base in the lens is placed near the bridge of the nose.

As for your eyesight. I would suggest you wear your glasses full time for several weeks so to allow your eyes "adjust" to your new vision. But truly it is ones brain that really is doing the adjusting. Our eyes are simply a pathway for the brain to "see".


Jane 26 Sep 2006, 21:03

Thank you for replying to my post. From memory, my script is -0.5/-0.5 (right) and +0.5/+0.25 (left). I know that this is very slight. With my left eye there is no noticeable difference for istance vision whether I wear my glasses or not. With my right eye, even thought it is still a weak prescription, when I do not wear glasses everything further than about 2m away is not really clear and I have noticeable double vision when i look at print. Is this due to the astigmatism?

As for reading, when print is blurry there does seem to be a shadow type of effect, kind of like double vision i guess. I also seem to have to strain more with near work when I use both of my eyes.

I don't know what prescription the optometrist would give me for close work as she suggested that I come back in about a month and in the mean time, document any problems I have with near work. She suggested this because I was a bit reluctant to get reading glasses as I am only 29 and thought this was a bit young. If I start wearing reading glasses now, won't I just keep on needing stronger and stronger ones?

With the "ruler" she did say that the arrow should be at zero so i guess this means i do have an alignment problem. Can reading glasses help with this or would i need prisms? Can any one tell me a bit more about prisms or is there somewhere else on this website where they are explained?


Cactus Jack 26 Sep 2006, 15:05

Jane,

It would be very helpful if you could provide your new prescription and age.

I suspect the test you described as a ruler test may have been a test for muscle imbalance. The way it works is that one eye sees the rule with the numbers and the other eye sees the arrow. Normally, if a person sees the arrow pointing near the 0" it means that there is no muscle imbalance. However, that is not necessarily the case. The center point on many machines is adjustable so that the operator can offset the center point to other values If you saw the arrow hovering between the 9 and 11 it could mean that you have about 10 prism diopters of muscle imbalance or it could mean that the center point was adjusted to 10 and you have no muscle imbalance. This type of test is normally used for screening purposes and if the Examiner decides that some prism would be useful, the phoropter has the ability to more accurately measure prism requirements.

Just because you saw the arrow between 9 and 11 does not mean that you need prism. Have you experienced any double vision?

BTW, 10 diopters of prism is not much. Glasses with 10 diopters of prism are usually made with 5 diopters in each eye and each eye would be deflected about 2.5 degrees.

C.


Phil 26 Sep 2006, 08:17

I would be very interested in a reply to Jane's query.

When I was 18 I knew I was getting a bit short-sighted so went for a first eyetest. I told the optician that I had suffered headaches (because I thought that would get me glasses!) and he tested me in the way Jane describes. I think that, like Jane, I recorded a less than "perfect" result. But when the optician discovered from the Snelling chart that I was indeed a bit short-sighted (-.5 I think) he seemed confused. It was as if the two tests had yielded inconsistent findings. He put on his own glasses and applied the "ruler" test to himself. And he muttered something about the equipment possibly being dodgy. In the end he concluded that my eyesight was not "bad" enough to require him to prescribe glasses. In fact I think it was because it was time for his lunch!

Four years later (after reading law at Oxford) I went for another eye test. My rx was by then -2.75 and I got my glasses. The optician refused to believe they were my first. The ruler didn't feature and has never featured at any test since, even since I became presbyopic and have needed an add.

So what was the "ruler" testing? Why did it confuse that first optician? And why hasn't it been used on me since?


Jane 26 Sep 2006, 04:00

This is my first post to this site,so i am sorry if i ask questions that have been answered before. I just went for an eye test as it had been a couple of years since my last. (I am slightly short-sighted in my right eye and slightly longsighted in my left with some astigmatism in both). Anyway, lately i have been having a lot of trouble focussing on near work. It often goes in and out of focus and i find it hard to stop my eyes from straying around the page (does that make sense?)and have been getting head aches.

The optometrist said that I need a reading prescription now. She did this test where I had to look through an instrument and tell her which number on a ruler the arrow lined up with. It is apparently supposed to line up in the middle at 0 but for me it was a long way to the right (hovering between 9 and 11). Can someone please tell me what this means and whether glasses will help overcome this problem. Thank you.


Tod 22 Sep 2006, 15:54

I just ordered a pair of wire frames glasses. The exact same style that I remember this cute girl at our HS used to wear way back in 1970-1972.


Tod 21 Sep 2006, 19:25

Memory lane

http://www.eyeglasseswarehouse.com/metalframes.html


Tod 13 Sep 2006, 10:02

a question: what is the percentage of women who wear glasses? This to include contact lens wearers and LASIK patients. And a further break down by Rx type: myopia; hyperopia; astigmatism; full time wear and degree of Rx ; etc.

If anyone can report these facts, that would be great.


 12 Sep 2006, 22:10

so it would seem, R


R 11 Sep 2006, 08:37

hey.

Im 20. In around may 2005 i got a prescription for -0.5 in each eye along with -0.25 astigmatism. The prescription remained the same in december that year. Recently ive noticed that when i hold my spare pair of glasses over my usual pair and look through both things in the distance are sharper althugh things nearby by look a bit less clear. Do i need a new prescription?


Wayne_D 02 Sep 2006, 13:01

Guest Poster,

Working at a hospital in 2004 I met a doctor from the Ukraine. She is -5.00 and she has a sister who was the same. Her sister used the Bates Method over a period of time and was able to bring her correction to 0 diopters.


Guest poster 02 Sep 2006, 00:18

This, from here - http://www.i-see.org/pullicino.html - is a plug for the old Bates quackery.

But read this below, surely it exaggerates a teensy bit?

"I first was prescribed glasses when I came to Canberra from Melbourne. I was then 14 years old. The prescription was very weak. If I remember correctly it was something like RE 0.25D LE 0.5D. [3] From then on my myopia got steadily worse and worse until two years ago and around three or four more prescriptions later I had RE 1.75D LE 2.25D. At that stage it was becoming necessary to wear glasses for reading, but I resisted this instinctively. I also began to wear my glasses almost full time. The time came during my law exams in 1999 when I couldnt see the print of a book on my lap. I was on the verge of going to get my glasses re-ordered and I knew I was going to have to start reading with them."


tsirt emotpo 18 Aug 2006, 14:05

Candice, your boyfriend is nearsighted/myopic with a small amount of astigmatism. In my opinion, he has a low Rx and can likely function fairly well at most distances closer than 10 feet but further out than this he will run into an issue with seeing fine detail. You have a boring Rx, farsighted with some astigmatism, a very common prescription when you look at the general population. I doubt your contacts are the exact same Rx as your glasses, most toric contacts only come in either -0.75 steps of cylinder units and few correct in -1.00 units (I think focus toric still do). When you wear his Rx with your contacts you are effectively making yourself far-sighted again (like your eyes are naturally). Vice versa, if he wears your glasses he makes his eyes effectively more near-sighted (his distance vision will be even more blurry).


Candice 14 Aug 2006, 06:36

Hi..I wear glasses with a rx of R+1.5 -1.25 X80 L+1.5 -1.00 X70.I wear contacts most of the time though.I am 30 years old.My boyfriend got glasses about 6 months ago.The rx is L-0.75 -0.25 x 100 R-1.00 -0.5 x 160.He only uses the glasses from driving at night.I was just wondering if this is normal as the lenses don't look that weak.I see people wearing glasses of that strengh fulltime everyday in shopping malls.He claims that his vision is fine for driving during the day and for TV.I would love him to be a full time wearer.He is 25 years old.Will his eyes get worse as he get older that he will become a fulltime wearer or has it stabilised by this age?When I try his glasses on over my contacts they still feel fairly strong.Why does my glasses or contacts not neautralise his prescription.Would I need stronger contacts or is it the astigmatism.Is my vision worse than his uncorrected at say 50 yards judging from these prescriptions.He seems to have a bit more difficulty than me at distance at night.I just can't understand how he can walk around a mall without glasses on.I cannot bare to be without correction.I feel so much more relaxed if I do not have continous blur and eyestrain.At my prescription is it normal for my glasses and contact prescription to be the same?Whenever is get new disposables they have to be ordered for me.Is my prescription very rare?

Hope someone can give me insight into these question...Thanks


Phil 03 Aug 2006, 06:38

Miriam, that's quite an unusual rx!

With your left eye you might find that the -1 for distance lets you see more crisply for driving, tv etc. But for close work the add means that you will see exactly if you weren't wearing specs.

With the right I would have thought that the total of +2.5 for close stuff would make quite a difference when reading etc. And you will probably be more comfortable with distance vision too as you get used to wearing specs. Until now you have probably accommodated that degree of longsightedness but as one gets older one needs the help of a lense.

I would get a nice pair of specs made up and see how you go. You may feel more comfortable wearing them with the extra clarity they give you. But there are no "rules" about how often to wear specs. If you think uyou would be self-conscious with lined bifocals go for varifocals. In my experience it is well worth paying a bit extra for a high grade lense like Zeiss.

You'll probably soon find that you did not know how you managed without glasses. And you'll be flattered by the attention they bring you. Most women considerably enhance their attractiveness by wearing nice frames. And with good quality varifocal lenses you won't look "old ladyish"! They'll be indistinguishable from single vision lenses but avoid you having to have multiple pairs for close and distance vision.

Give it a go and let us know how you get on. Good luck.


miriam 03 Aug 2006, 05:25

Having not had glasses before and having experienced a mild deterioration in distance vision, not that troublesome really, is it worth aged 42 getting glasses with this prescription and would they need to be worn all the time?

L: -1.0

R: +1.5 -0.75

Add: +1.0

Very interested in any opinions,

Miriam


Bart 01 Aug 2006, 05:40

OttO (and all the others), the simulator you posted seems very accurate though it shows an already very bad vision starting just from -6. You think is it right?

In my researches I saw quite a few of simulators recently, I found one really cute: http://www.visionsimulations.com/BlurSimulator.htm

(you have to use Internet Explorer)

it is very interesting because simulates a large variety of situations, for rx over -10 seems very accurate too but for lower rxs it seems to show a better vision than the other one, maybe too good..


lazysiow 01 Aug 2006, 01:34

ahh.. this one :)

http://www.vsdar.de/english/virtualeye/index.html


Neville 31 Jul 2006, 22:36

There was another one of these someone posted a while back. It was a German site and looked slightly different to this one.

I just tried it and it seems to blur everything quite significantly from -0.75 out. Is this associated with a lasik clinic!! Anyone know the link to the German site?


Random_Eye 30 Jul 2006, 17:29

Was wondering where is was thought I might have really been going blind ;)


Cactus Jack 30 Jul 2006, 16:11

Oops! Thanks, OttO

C.


OttO 30 Jul 2006, 14:51

This may be the link that Cactus had in mind.

http://www.optiker.at/simulator/


 30 Jul 2006, 14:14

Great thanks, but there's no link posted.


Cactus Jack 30 Jul 2006, 05:12

anon,

Here is a link to an Austrian site with exmples of various refractive errors. The language is German, but you can probably figure it out. "Alter" is age range.

C.


Dave 30 Jul 2006, 00:43

jo,

Interesting. Do you know anything about the Japanese system? Sachi from joyofspex says her Rx is 0.04. She is quite myopic, probably in the -7 to -10 range.


jo 29 Jul 2006, 23:50

in many asian countries like HK, Singapore, taiwan, malaysia etc, degrees is used as a term of measure instead of diopters. Hence, 100 degrees equals 1.0 diopter. When a person says, he's 1000 degrees, it means he has a prescription of -10.00.


 29 Jul 2006, 23:32

Does anyone know a link to a vision simulator where I can check out myopia and astigmatism please?


guest 26 Jul 2006, 07:30

That was my first guess. I would have assumed his rx would have been higher, though, because he said he was exempted from military service because of his myopia. I would have thought that -10.00 isn't such a high RX in Taiwan...


specs4ever 26 Jul 2006, 03:15

that would be -10.00D I believe


guest 26 Jul 2006, 01:26

I recently met a Taiwanese myope who explained that his prescription is "1000 degrees." Does anyone know what this means, or how it translates into diopters?


ReplytoGuest 05 Jul 2006, 10:50

Exactly!


Plusfan 05 Jul 2006, 10:50

admirer, I agree with you !!!


 05 Jul 2006, 10:12


ReplytoGuest 05 Jul 2006, 09:44

That is a very good question. What would they need them for?


Guest 05 Jul 2006, 09:25

Male 37. Why do you ask?


Question for Guest 05 Jul 2006, 09:23

Guest,

May I ask if your are Male or Female and your age?


Guest 05 Jul 2006, 08:50

Why would they be prescribed then?


Replyto Guestfrom6/29 05 Jul 2006, 07:01

Many people with a -.75 prescription see better than 20/40 without correction and do not have a restricted driver's license.


admirer 05 Jul 2006, 06:42

ladies who wear heavy plus glassses are adorable, to me they look so sexy and attractive, sometime ago had sex with a lady wearing very heavy plus glasses, she was a brilliant sexual lover, loved her to keep her glasses on added to the excitement, often a ladywith high plus glasses in a burning inferno of sex waiting to get out, so guys heavy plus glasses heave it over high- glasses, ladies who wear high plus glasses are definately the more sexy, and an added bonus they usually are very loyal and have beautiful personalities, guys what do you think and ladies have I described you.


admirer 05 Jul 2006, 06:35


EyeSpy 04 Jul 2006, 23:23

Ive heard that a measure like 20/200 is influenced by whether the person corrects to 20/20, or better, or worse. So 20/200 could be the case for some -2.50 myopes but probably not for most. I only correct to 20/25 in one eye so up against others who correct to 20/20 I guess my visual efficiency would be worse. Does that make my uncorrected vision worse than someone with the same prescription? Probably not I dont really know.

At -2.50 Id say it starts to become more difficult to function without glasses and there are more things that require glasses than not, for people who want to see well that is. (Managing as you put it Philosofer is slightly different). I think John probably gets closest both have difficulty seeing in the distance but what really makes the difference is not being able to see up close either. I imagine someone who had -2.50 for distance and a +5 for near would actually feel blind as they wouldnt be able to see clearly at any distance.

I was sceptical about the statement but like most things, in the end I think you can argue them either way.


John 04 Jul 2006, 20:19

Philosopher - One of the biggest reasons that a person with 2.5 D of myopia can manage fine but a person who is legally blind (20/200) will have real difficulty is that the legally blind person can't see things up close any better than things far away. The myope can read (up close) just fine, and that's a huge difference. (Granted, it won't make a difference doing something like driving...but neither of these people can drive safely.)


Philosifer 04 Jul 2006, 10:45

While the paper on Myopia posted by Guest on July 3 does seem to come from a well-informed source, the following paragraph seems to contradict things I have read before, and also go against certain personal experience.

" 2.50 diopter of myopia reduces vision to 20/200 level and the visual efficiency is reduced to 20%. 'Best corrected' vision worse than 20/200 is the 'legal definition of blindness'. Therefore at or above 2.50 diopter of 'uncorrected' myopia the eyesight is reduced to a vision-level that defines 'legal blindness'. Without glasses or contact lenses, a myope of -2.50 D sees what a legally blind person is able to see (with his/her best corrected eye)."

What I thought I had read before is that 4.00 - not 2.50 - dioptres of myopia reduces vision to 20/200 ?

And, though I have not heard the term 'visual efficiency' before, intuition would suggest that 20/200 sounds more like 10% than 20% efficient ?

And, finally, I know all too sadly and from long personal experience, that a female person with 2.50 dioptres of myopia can manage perfectly well for most practical purposes (except watching TV and driving), so I really must believe than she is seeing better than - even the corrected vision - of someone who is legally classified as blind ?


specs4ever 04 Jul 2006, 06:24

Well guest, I am not 100% sure, however I believe that up to -1.00D of astigmatism can sometimes be corrected by adding -0.50D to the sphere. The usual rule of thumb is that 1/2 of the astigmatism correction is added to the sphere. And over -1.00D of astigmatism pretty well requites toric contact lenses. Although back in the days of hard plastic contacts as much as -3.00D of astigmatism could be corrected by adding to the sphere. I think RGP contacts work much the same way, as the hard lenses reshape the irregular cornea. However, I do not know any of this absolutely for sure.


Julian 03 Jul 2006, 18:25

OK Guest, the line you quote makes sense in context. You quoted it out of context.


Tim 03 Jul 2006, 18:08

"The odds of having myopia increase with increasing numbers of myopia (sic) parents". Odd - I have never met anyone with more than two biological parents, myopic or otherwise.


Guest 03 Jul 2006, 14:22

Julian

I'm not sure what you're quoting, but here's the original article

http://www.agingeye.net/myopia/myopiaindex.php

What do people make of that


Julian 03 Jul 2006, 12:59

"wat a legally blind person is able to see *with the best possible correction*". I thought Guest's post was misleading to say the least.


EyeSpy 03 Jul 2006, 12:08

"Without glasses or contact lenses, a myope of -2.50 D sees what a legally blind person is able to see."

Can this really be true?


 29 Jun 2006, 12:28

Guest,

Perhaps you did not provide enough information to answer your question.


Guest 29 Jun 2006, 12:21

ps - could no-one answer my questions of 20 June? I thought someone would know.


Guest 29 Jun 2006, 12:20

Here's interesting for anyone's who's ever wanted to know about visual acuity and prescription strength.

0.75 diopter of myopia reduces vision to 20/40 and the visual efficiency is reduced to 83% (20/20 is 100% visual efficiency). 20/40 vision is the cut-off used in most states for getting a driver's license. At or above 0.75 diopter of uncorrected myopia, you will fail the vision test to get a driver's license.

1.50 diopter of myopia reduces vision to 20/80 level and the visual efficiency is reduced to 58%.

2.50 diopter of myopia reduces vision to 20/200 level and the visual efficiency is reduced to 20%. 'Best corrected' vision worse than 20/200 is the 'legal definition of blindness'. Therefore at or above 2.50 diopter of 'uncorrected' myopia the eyesight is reduced to a vision-level that defines 'legal blindness'. Without glasses or contact lenses, a myope of -2.50 D sees what a legally blind person is able to see.


Guest  20 Jun 2006, 22:41

A couple of questions in one really. If someone had some astigmatism that was only corrected by sphere in their contacts, say -2.50 but with the astigmatism correction the contacts were -2.75, how much real astigmatism is being corrected by the extra -.25 in the contacts?

Secondly, how much can be corrected by sphere? I thought that torics were prescribed over .75 but am not sure.


spexfan 12 Jun 2006, 13:18

On the topic of convergence, I've just got my first ever pair of multifocals. Luxotica Panamic. +1.00 with 0.50 cyl in each eye and +1.5 add.

The right eye works very well. The left, however, is a little blurred for anything closer than 2 feet. I personally think it's because the sweet spot of the lens is placed too far to the left (though my monocular pd is definitely 2mm bigger on that side.) The dispensing optician/doctor (not my doctor, who is in another country) thinks it's because my left eye wanders out slightly - apparently the lens is correctly aligned for the pd - and I therefore am unsuitable for progressives.

There may be some truth in the alignment issue as I was wearing +2.5 base out prisms in my last Rx (my doctor then decided to prescribe an add instead of the prism, hence the progreesives.)

Anyway, I disagree with the optician. I took the left lens out of the frame and manually moved it towards the bridge by 3mm. Voila. Pin sharp vision up close.

Don't Luxotica have a warranty/trail period on their progressives? Can I demand the optician replace/realign the lens? They seem vary reluctant to do this.

Thanks.

PS. Otherwise like the progressives a lot.


Cactus Jack 12 Jun 2006, 09:49

anon,

What kink of convergence problems do you have?

C.


Cactus Jack 12 Jun 2006, 09:47

anon,

For some people with overconvergence problems, the connection between focusing and converging is so strong that fusion is overcome when trying to focus close and they have double vision. Plus glasses can be used for close work to allow the focus system to relax and reduce the tendency for the eyes to cross.

One of the things that make the total visual system so interesting is the interconnection and interaction of the the various subsystems.

What is your age and Rx?

C.


anon 12 Jun 2006, 09:23

Cactus Jack,

I suffer from this problem and was advised by several eye professionals, as well as having read quite widely out on the topic out of curiousity, that plus lenses aggravate the convergence problem. If you have problems getting both eyes to work together, you have to wear the right rx.

I've also tried plus lenses recently to experiment, and found that they caused me many problems.


Cactus Jack 11 Jun 2006, 19:45

anon,

Where did you get that idea?

C.


anon 11 Jun 2006, 19:09

Apparently wearing plus lenses of you've got convergence problems is not a good idea.


Cactus Jack 08 Jun 2006, 13:13

Plus Fan,

Not to worry, If anything, wearing plus glasses with myopia might (very tiny might)cause you to become a little less myopic or might encourage presbyopia because your internal lenses and ciliary muscles don't have to flex as much to focus.

C.


Plusheavy 08 Jun 2006, 07:19

Nothing is going to happen unless you bump into things and fail to recognise your friends because of temporarily increased myopia resulting from wearing plus lenses. Wearing wrong glasses only results in temporary discomfort. Permament damage is a myth promoted by opticians who claim that only a perfect fit can prevent the progression of myopia and who are naturally interested in attracting clients.


Plusanheavy 08 Jun 2006, 07:18

Nothing is going to happen unless you bump into things and fail to recognise your friends because of temporarily increased myopia resulting from wearing plus lenses. Wearing wrong glasses only results in temporary discomfort. Permament damage is a myth promoted by opticians who claim that only a perfect fit can prevent the progression of myopia and who are naturally interested in attracting clients.


plus fan 08 Jun 2006, 06:26

I'm myopic but like wearing plus lenses. Would wearing plus lenses full time harm my eyes? Would I become farsighted or more nearsighted?


Mariel 07 Jun 2006, 14:17

Hi Rich

I'm 32 but why would that make any difference to whether I'm 37 or 40?


Phil 07 Jun 2006, 01:54

Katy, it's such a pity you didn't become an optician (or whatever they call themselves nowadays). You'd have been so good: at an intellectual level and the level of sound common sense. And I suspect you'd have found it great fun too!!


Rich 06 Jun 2006, 23:09

Mariel, how old are you? Whether one needs glasses full time or not depends on how much blurriness one can tolerate.


Mariel 06 Jun 2006, 11:13

I posted on the 'When I was at school' thread but think it's better to continue here.

I am -2.25 and -2.75 and I'm happy to wear glasses and I do for anything when I need to see well, ie not full time. My friend is -2.75 and has worn contacts for a long time and can't really go without correction for long. She first got glasses, weak I guess, at 17. Is the -.5 difference so much? She's recently had a test otherwise I'd think she needed an increase.

Since my eyes started changing I've got a bit obsessed by all this optical stuff. I'm left eye dominant - though I'm right handed which is unusual apparently!! - would that mean I get a better deal than my friend because I'm seeing more of the -2.25 than the -2.75 which is the same as her prescription? I don't think she has astigmatism because her contacts are regular -2.75 disposables.

Just discovered this forum, it's great!!


tortoise 13 May 2006, 20:45

Philosifer, I know some high myopes and have tried GOC up to -36.

I think the vision centres in the brain adapt incredibly well to glasses, even with very strong lenses. Retina problems aside, I think acuity with glasses over -20 can be surprisingly good. I have noticed, though, that people with very strong glasses seem to lose a lot of co-ordination with objects in space. They seem to find ball sports much more difficult, for example, stepping onto stairs and even reaching for something can take a split second more attention than someone with normal vision would need.

It seems to me that people with strong glasses tend to gravitate towards sedentary occupations and activities. This is not just a stereotype, it's because of real visual limitation.


Katy 13 May 2006, 14:22

chromatic aberration, even :-)


Katy 13 May 2006, 14:19

Philosifer - that is an interesting question. I suppose that of the problems that strongish glasses can cause, some disappear once you are used to the glasses (like straight lines appearing curved) and some don't (like blurred peripheral vision). My boyfriend has almost the same prescription as your wife (-4.75, -6.00 with some astigmatism) and has never even tried contacts. I would be fascinated to see his reaction to the vision he could get with them, but worried that that would be the end of his glasses! A friend of his with -5.00 got contacts 'to try' a couple of months ago and hasn't been seen in glasses since - he is now talking about laser surgery.

Problems such as chromatic abberation and blurred peripheral vision are made quite a bit worse by high index lenses, but I don't think opticians tend to point this out to people - it is usually more like 'you have to get these expensive lenses or your glasses will be incredibly ugly and thick'. :(


Wei 13 May 2006, 04:20

Philofier - i have -17 and see much with contact. No minification no distortation with contact. I have friend who -6 and find same but this is much less than for me i think. I think it importatnt for some people have unobstruted all round vision and feel restricted wear glasses, but others comfortable wearing glasses and adapt difference in vision from glasses. Personal choice mainly. But for very high script contacts a cheaper option than very hi index lenses and have better vision.


Philosifer 12 May 2006, 22:43

S4E - it was good to get your direct response; almost like meeting you in person after these several years of simply being part of your audience !

There is always a pile of psychology involved in the "To Wear or Not to Wear" decision, even for us of the less-than-fair sex. For the ladies, I think, vanity used to be a bigger factor than it is now - with lots of attractive designer frames, and specs having become essentially mainstream ?

In my case I dont think this was in fact a major factor; she accepted that I would really prefer to see her in glasses, and offered to wear frames with plano lenses in them, if that would cheer me up ! Of course I felt that would be totally phoney, and refused, so hardly ever saw her wearing spectacles.

It would be interesting to hear from others, though. Are there some in this OO community who have considered that, at some point in the progression of prescriptions, wearing glasses can be substantially less than fun for the wearer ?


Peter 12 May 2006, 21:53

Philosifer --

I don't have experience with terribly strong glasses to relate, but I can say that with my -8 glasses, my acuity is fine; I notice no difference in what I can see in the distance between glasses and contacts.

But there are other aspects of vision that ARE much better with contacts than with glasses, I think. Most of the time, these things don't matter - like field-of-vision (it's not really peripheral vision, but rather the ability to turn my eyes toward something/someone without turning my head and see it clearly). Certainly, being outside in the rain without a hat is a lot less pleasant in glasses than in contacts. I wouldn't seriously consider trying to play sports in glasses unless there was no way I could wear contacts. Most of the rest of the time, it makes little difference, as "acuity" is what seems to matter most in vision, even though it isn't the whole story.

I've done some GOC, and I'd say the difference between glasses and contacts in these 'other' aspects of vision besides acuity gets larger and larger the higher the prescription. There really is quite a bit of distortion (or a very small field of vision, or both) with -20 glasses.

As for acuity (just the ability to, say, read an eye chart), there is some point where minification decreases acuity, but I think it's at a higher point than most of the fantasy stories I've read via EyeScene seem to place it. I have a pair of -28 glasses, and even with them, the minification doesn't seem to cause a loss of potential acuity beyond maybe one line or two (20/25 or 20/30 instead of 20/20).

Of course, real-world high myopes can have retina problems and such, which can be a cause of decreased vision that would be more or less the same whether they wear glasses or contacts.


specs4ever 12 May 2006, 19:58

I know from where you speak philosefer. My wife was a similar(-6D) prescription, and wore contacts almost exclusively. Although, she never once complained that her vision was not as good with glasses. She just hated the idea of being seen wearing glasses in public. I have known a number of myopes with -10D or greater, and the ones who wear glasses full time seemed to be able to see pretty darned good with glasses. The ones who wear contacts most of the time bitch about the fact that they can't see as well with glasses. I know there are a couple of ladies around -25 that I know, one in fact was -30D and -28.50D, and this lady had good enough corrected vision to keep a driver's license. The lady who was around -25.50R and -22.25L with about -2.25D of astigmatism always told everyone her eyesight was terrible, but every time I had coffee with her, and pointed out something outside, she always was able to see it, so I figured the terrible eyesight part of it wasn't that she didn't see ok, it was just that everyone had told her for years that her glasses were so strong that she must have terrible eyesight - if you follow my thoughts.


Philosifer 12 May 2006, 17:57

Guys and gals

Here is (I think) a new and interesting topic: "Just how strong do glasses need to get before they actually start to impede vision ? " In the real, not fantasy, world, that is.

For about 20 years I have been married to a myopic lady (-4.50, -6.00). She got contacts at age 18, and has worn them consistently since. Sadly for me she is dead set against wearing her glasses and gives, as the principal, simple, and uncontrovertible reason, the fact that she can she a whole lot better with her contacts. When she puts her glasses on the world gets smaller and her peripheral vision is substantial reduced.

Presumably, it is mostly her 'bad' left eye that is doing this, but it does makes me wonder what the effects of a pair of minus tens are, and does anybody as high as that really have fully satisfactory corrected vision ? And when we, in this fantasy land that is Eyesecene, go on about -15, -20, and -25, what - in terms of actual Corrected Visual Acuity - are we wishing on the objects of our dream ?


Clare 08 May 2006, 14:14

We had that conversation, he said he wouldn't wear contacts. Then something about one day soon he might have to his sight is getting so bad. But that was over 2 months ago and this is the first time I've seen him with glasses. The prescription is not more than -2.


Beth 06 May 2006, 13:20

Hi Bronwyn


Bronwyn 06 May 2006, 08:30

guest

of course, but i would luv the blue moon times. make him wear them? clare works with him, not me!


 06 May 2006, 02:06

claire, maybe he's a contacts wearer?!

Any guess on his prescription?


Guest 05 May 2006, 13:36

Bronwn

But wouldn't you want him to wear glasses more than once in a blue moon? How would you MAKE him??


Bronwyn 05 May 2006, 12:25

clare

he sounds perfect!


Clare 05 May 2006, 11:42

I've been away on business with some work colleagues. One, attractive guy, mentioned him before, will occasionally wear some *very* low minus glasses for the whole day. Then not for a month or so. I can't figure it out. In the past he's said things like "my eyesight is dreadful" but surely he must think people think it odd that he appears to see fine most of the time (he does) then wears glasses with all the gusto of a fulltime wearer once in a blue moon!! Fascinates me.


Kristen 27 Apr 2006, 13:08

Okay we'll just have to see but thanks for the replies.


Puffin 26 Apr 2006, 17:48

I could just float the hypothesis that maybe this optician/eye doc thought that you had the potential for a higher prescription, and wanted to get you there sooner rather than later by means of what might be termed the "reverse Bates Method".

Or else he might have made a mistake. :)


Paul 26 Apr 2006, 15:26

Kristen - You asked about the concept of not being able to take "the full prescription". This is *not* an issue that comes up for nearsighted (minus-prescribed) people like you and me. It's an issue for farsighted people; if someone has "latent" farsightedness -- that is, it's been there for a long time but they didn't know it -- then their eyes are accustomed to overfocusing all the time. They can't easily stop doing that all at once and relax their eyes, so sometimes they have to work up to the prescription that allows their eyes to relax completely and see clearly in the distance.

For nearsighted people, the lens of the eye is typically relaxed...it's just that the focusing power of the eye with the lens relaxed is still too much, allowing the person to see things up close but not in the distance. For someone who is nearsighted, their full distance prescription will give them clear vision as soon as it is placed before their eyes.

There can still be a period of adjusting to new lenses, but that rarely would mean it made sense to make up a whole pair of glasses in a weaker than full prescription.


Julian 26 Apr 2006, 12:38

Kristen: You don't say how old you are, but what Emily says is true at any age: two years is plenty of time for your eyes to have changed. Your Rx now doesn't give much of a clue to your Rx then, except in the most general terms, i.e it's not likely that you're less myopic now than you were then.


Kristen 26 Apr 2006, 12:13

Emily

Thanks for the reply. I do have a test booked but wondered if anyone else had had a similar experience. I was so shocked that my prescription was diagnosed so high and convinced it was wrong. It obviously was at the time but I was interested to know if anyone had come across anything like it before. I had read somewhere that sometimes people can't take the full correction at once and wondered whether that was in fact the case with me.


Emily 25 Apr 2006, 14:37

Hi Kristen. After 2 years, you should definitely have a new exam, because that's plenty of time for your eyes to have changed. I would tell the eye doctor that you think you need stronger glasses, but let him or her make the decision. Good luck!


Kristen 25 Apr 2006, 14:27

2 years ago I went for a routine eye exam and got a hefty increase in one eye that took me to -3.25. The eye dr prescribed me contacts of -3 and I wore them the next day. I felt the prescription was too strong and the prescription in that eye was scaled back to -2.50. I thought that was a pretty big error of judgement to come up with what I thought was such an over prescription.

My prescription in the right eye has always been higher than the left and Ive noticed that even with contacts the vision from the right eye isnt as good as the left. Today I decided to try one of the -3 lenses that I still had left over from the trial 2 years ago. I wasnt too surprised to find that the vision I got from it was fine, not too strong like before. Ive read that some people cant take the full prescription all at once and I wonder if the -3.50 prescription actually wasnt far off.

The reason for my post is to ask other peoples thoughts on my story and if I go back for another test should I say up front what happened and that I would like a stronger prescription for my right eye?


Cactus Jack 25 Apr 2006, 08:29

Guest,

Yes. However, I doubt two uncorrected individuals with the Rxes you stated could describe the differences in their binocular distance vision. Vision is just too subjective and it is hard to describe differences in small degrees of bluriness.

That is why glasses and contacts are usually not prescribed by the results of the autorefrator or the retinoscope alone.

Could I ask why all this concern about something so insignificant.

C.


Guest 24 Apr 2006, 22:37

Sorry Cactus Jack

That was my typing error. I was trying to compare -2.25/-2.75 and -2.50/-2.50 but I rather made it look like -2.25 and -2.50.

So -2.50/-2.50 in your opinion is still wosre than -2.25 and -3?


Cactus Jack 24 Apr 2006, 21:02

Guest?,

I'm not absolutely sure what you mean by "threshold". If you mean "is there point where a better eye and a much worse eye is worse than two equally medium bad eyes", I don't think so. I base that thought on my understanding of how the brain processes images.

There is plenty of evidence that that the brain can teach itself or be trained (programed?) to "see" more than what one would expect by pure logic.

If given two images of differing quality, the brain quickly learns to select the image from the eye with the sharpest image as the basis of what it "sees" and then fills in what additional details it can, using information from the poorer eye or even from memory.

A prime example is the regular practice of fitting cataract patients with IOLs of very different powers to provide distance vision with one eye and near vision with the other (Monovision). In a few days, the patient hardly notices and comfortably goes about his business and still has depth perception.

Causing the brain to see something other than what is really there is the basis of most optical illusions. The eyes see what is there but the brain misinterprets it.

This ability to construct a "usable" image from memory may also help explain why a person with uncorrected myopia can learn to function quite well with blurry vison except when faced with completely unfamiliar small details.

There is also plenty of evidence that the brain can quickly reprogram itself if the visual environment suddenly changes - such as getting glasses - and quickly decides that constructing a usable image from lousy data is a waste of time and energy.

I have experienced some interesting "reprograming" myself. Many years ago, my company was one of the pioneering users of CRTs with flat faces. When we first got them, nearly everyone thought there was something bad wrong because the data on the screen looked concave. We were ready to send them back when we began to notice that the longer we looked, the flatter the screen looked until they soon looked normal. Then it dawned on us that we were used to looking at CRTs with curved face plates that looked flat and until our brains reprogramed themselves they were "correcting" the flat images to look concave. Curiously, both curved and flat CRTs looked flat from then on.

Enough said. You don't have to take my word for it or theorize. If you can get hold of a trial lens set, you can set up the conditions described in your question and experiment for yourself.

C.


 24 Apr 2006, 17:20

Cactus Jack

So when does the 'threshold' as such get reached. I mean, surely L -2.00, R -4.50 is not better than L -2.50 and R -2.50 is it?!


Cactus Jack 24 Apr 2006, 15:54

Guest,

Certainly. If the two people wore corrective lenses and assuming there was nothing else wrong, they both should have been corrected to 0.00 refractive error and have equally good vision.

In your second proposition, the individual with -2.25/-2.50 would have better uncorrected vision than the individual with -2.25/-3.00. Even though the brain selected the eye with -2.25 as the source for a distant image, the eye with -2.50 would supply more/better supplemental information than the -3.00 eye.

C.


Guest 24 Apr 2006, 13:49

That assumes that both the -2.50/-2.50 and the -2.25/-2.75 wearers are going without correction. I have to say why would they?

I see your reasoning but when does the process you describe Cactus Jack break down. Is -2.25/-3 still better than -2.250/-2.50?


Cactus Jack 24 Apr 2006, 12:01

REd,

Did you win the bet?

C.


Cactus Jack 24 Apr 2006, 12:00

REd,

It is hard to believe, but -2.50 / -2.50 is worse.

Vision occurs in the brain and the brain automatically selects the best image for the situation. Therefore, if a person has -2.25 / -2.75 the brain will usually select the -2.25 eye as supplying the better distance image and supplement it with information from the -2.75 eye if useful.

In many respects it is a form of monovision, but instead of one eye being for distance and the other for close up, the -2.25 eye is for close and the -2.75 eye is for closer.

C.


REd 24 Apr 2006, 11:34

Jer

I have the same. I can see better out my =2.25 eye than the =2.75 even with my glasses on. But I don't have a test till September when it may be even worse.


REd 24 Apr 2006, 11:32

Which is worse - 2.50 and -2.50 or

-2.25 and -2.75?

We are having a discussion at work and even have some money riding on it. I need to know the answer!


Cactus Jack 24 Apr 2006, 06:21

Oops. Last post to Jer was from me.

C.


 24 Apr 2006, 06:20

Jer,

It depends on the elements of your Rx that have changeed: Sphere, Cylinder, Axis or all three. If sphere only, Left -0.25 to -0.50 increase. Right -0.50 to -0.75. If cylinder or axis nearly impossible to estimate.

All this is very subjective and depends on your tolerance of blur, your preferences, your skill at working with the examiner, and the skill of the examiner to arrive at an accurate Rx.

In any event, the change will probably not be noticable to anyone but you - unless you change frame styles.

C.


Jer 24 Apr 2006, 00:05

Ok I have -2.75 in my left eye and -3.00 in my right eye. I've had my glasses for 2 years plus now and finally started wearing full time (ya i know its sad)...But, I've noticed stuff is becomind hard to see again when its far away. I have to squint with my glasses on or look with a tilt. I have also noticed my right eye is a bit blury than my left even with glasses.

I've taken the online tests and my vision is w/ correction is about 20/30 in the left and 20/60 in the right. I should probably schedule an eye appointment...any idea how much my prescription will increase...all I could find was the - on my prescription...

I'm 18 if that helps


 23 Apr 2006, 16:40

Guest remember 'relatively low' is in professional terms. It would not be considered 'low' by the person who was uncorrected at -2.75.

It is all about relativity. Compared with a plano, -2.75 is 100's times worse. Compared with a -5.00, it is 100's times better. In my view, anything over about -2.00-2.50, is 'high enough', because one is inhibited without correction as much as someone with a higher presciption (withinin reason!)


Cactus Jack 23 Apr 2006, 14:47

Guest,

-2.75 is considered relatively low.

If you have near 20/20 vision, you can experience what she sees by getting a pair of inexpensive +2.75 over-the-counter reading glasses. Wal-mart is a good source.

If you decide to try it, I would appreciate your comments.

C.


Guest 23 Apr 2006, 14:15

My friend got glasses with this correction. She had glasses before but didnt wear them. She wears these now and I wondered what she could see. Would this be considered strong?


Clare 23 Apr 2006, 13:08

That's absolutely true Cactus Jack. In fact your calcuation, or my conformity, is accurate - I'm exactly 36cm from the PC screen.

Guest - Cactus Jack is right, at -2.75 someone couldn't *watch* the tv - they wouldn't be able to see the screen cearly enough.


Cactus Jack 23 Apr 2006, 12:40

Guest,

I was being facetious. -2.75 means what I said about anything beyond 14 inches or 36 cm being blurry. If the TV is farther than that distance you couldn't read any text and if there were no sound, you would have little idea about what was going on. I have difficulty understanding why anyone would want to do that.

If I may be so bold, why do you ask?

C.


Guest 23 Apr 2006, 10:12

I see your humor. I guess you mean at all times out of the house? What about the tv?


Cactus Jack 23 Apr 2006, 09:38

Guest,

They would need to wear them only when they wanted to see clearly beyond about 14 inches or 36 cm. They probably would not need them for reading very close provided there was no astigmatism.

They probably would not need them for finding their way about familiar surroundings, but it would approach hazardous outside or in unfamiliar territory.

They would not need them while sleeping.

C.


Guest 23 Apr 2006, 08:46

How much would someone with a correction of -2.75 wear it?


ChrisB 20 Apr 2006, 15:08

Katy,

I bet not many people who have had lasik are aware that the police and train companies dont see it as a procedure that gives reliable vision in all circumstances!

Reading this, I am not sure I would get into a taxi if I knew the driver had had lasik.

Chris


Puffin 20 Apr 2006, 14:22

I have no need of glasses (as of yet) but I understand, but then I'm a glasses nut. :)


Curt 20 Apr 2006, 13:49

Karly: The next time they tell you that you still have your glasses on, your response should be:

"Yes, I need them to see!"

I'll bet neither of them wears glasses either. People who have never worn glasses or needed them really cannot understand...


Katy 20 Apr 2006, 12:46

Oh yes, the other thing was, can you squint if they are testing uncorrected acuity? :-)


Katy 20 Apr 2006, 12:37

My boyfriend was looking at the requirements for becoming a train driver in the UK, and apparently you need 3/60 uncorrected vision in both eyes. Also, they won't consider you if you have had laser surgery. I think I read that it is similar for the police. Is 3/60 equivalent to 6/120 and 20/400? And with an rx of -6.00/-1.25, would it be likely that he could see that? Thanks :-)


Karly 17 Apr 2006, 14:19

My mom is just so critical to think I need glasses. Even pointing out I can't see things doesn't seem to make her see. What can I do? I really want to wear my glasses and see without the aggravation of all the comments.


Phil 14 Mar 2006, 01:26

Clare, if you let me be one of the first to see them u'll at least be sure of getting a compliment or six!


Clare 13 Mar 2006, 14:22

Phil - you're right, that typing was shocking and I don't THINK it's because I need an add just yet. And by the way, the funky frames aren't getting much of an airing yet, just getting used to them before I try them on others - a shocked reaction would destroy my confidence!


Phil 13 Mar 2006, 01:02

Hi Clare. Nice to see you back. Your typing's terrible! Are you sure you shouldn't be getting some reading plus? When we having that coffee? I'd so like to see those new frames.


Clare 12 Mar 2006, 11:05

Karly - that must be difficult for you. I'm -2.75 and wear contacts all eek, during the weekend I give myself a rest from the contacts and wear glasses. I too have mother who finds it hard to accept that her offspring is less than perfect, but she's beginning to understand. That's happened just naturally when she's pointed out things that I couldn't see. For me, it wasn't intentional - but you could try that, she probably doesn't realise what you can/can't see and thinkis it's just a fashion=thing (mum's are like that eh?).


Karly 12 Mar 2006, 10:15

That's my prescription. I don't even wear half of the time becuase boyfriend and my mom disapprove. They always say things like - do you know you've still got your glasses on. So of course I take them off then. One of my friends is -2.75 and she's either in contacts or glasses all the time. Is there that much difference between my prescription and hers?


daisy 12 Mar 2006, 09:10

Probably most if not all of the time.


Joe 12 Mar 2006, 08:36

Hello glasses fans

If you were -2.75 and -2.25 how much would you be wearing your glasses?


presbyopia_23 06 Mar 2006, 09:27

welcome back specs4ever! The best way for me to tell the power of someone's glasses is try it on. If they are too weak, ill see well from near and still blurry from distance. If they are near the right power, distance will be clear and near will be somewhat blurry. If they are too strong, I dont see a thing from near and blurry from even distance. Astigmastim can be found by rotating the lens to check for disortions. If I dont try the glasses, I judge by thickness, minification and cut.


Johanna Mueben 05 Mar 2006, 02:27

To Larika: But by observing the cut, you often could notice the thickness of the lens because a thick lens would produce much blur, and from Serna's pic you could notice the blurry region is very small, probably that's a hi-index lens on her right eye, and prescription is probably about -2D to -3D if it cuts that much. Astigmatism might exist, but must be less than 1.00D at her right eye. I could not determine her left eye but base on the pic it's probably a stronger prescription around -3D or -4D, as spec4ever said. That's because I notice the reflective edge is much thicker.


Serna 03 Mar 2006, 19:23

Spec4ever is correct that observing their cut is pretty risky, especially for prescriptions with strong astigmatism.

Larika simply use my posted pic to show an example. Some factors like face shape, lens size, the direction the person is facing corresponding to your camera or eyes, etc. These are factors affect the cuts, but the position of cuts could not show the prescription accurately.

Like, if a person is right facing your eyes or camera, the cuts is not as significant as when the person is looking 30 degrees from your eyes or camera. The same could applied to + lenses as well.

Another factor is lens size, if one use smaller lens, then you would think one would have smaller prescription, especially when you can't see the cuts! Anyone with less than -5 glasses could do that if they have small lens. And with large lens size, even a small prescription could be shown clearly from the cuts (For example, that pic posted by Larika, actually her prescription by then was about -2.25)

And I think Larika had tried to put her glasses (or her friend's glasses) much away from their eyes, and noticed the image formed is much smaller. Actually this could show how - glasses could actually diminished the image a lot, if you put it far enough, but in that way our eyes is just like staring through those lenses, no matter it's just weak prescription like -1.


Serna 03 Mar 2006, 19:05

I have strong regular astigmatism.

Left: -0.75 -6.00 90

Right: -2.75 -5.50 90

With glasses, acuity: 20/50

Without glasses, acuity: less than 20/400 because of astigmatism.


Clare 03 Mar 2006, 13:50

S4E - good to see you back, I'm sure I'm not the only person who's missed your posts.


specs4ever 03 Mar 2006, 13:46

Well, I never left Clare. I just don't post unless I have an opinion. But, it is nice to know that someone noticed my silence


Clare 03 Mar 2006, 13:38

Specs4Ever - welcome back!!!


specs4ever 03 Mar 2006, 12:28

Well, guessing a prescription from the amount of cut in is always risky, and I actually doubt that any of us who do it really can get it correct, as there are a lot of factors to consider. High astigmatism will change the cut in, the angle at which you view the person will change the cut in. And, sometimes a person who would normally have a lot of cut in will be wearing small frames that mask the amount of cut in. So, really, all it is is a guess. The picture that you sent me to would make me guess at about a -3 to a -4D prescription.

Different indexes of lenses do not change anything. The important part is the power of the lens, and a -15D lens acts the same if it is in a 1.9 hi index, or a 1.5 low index.

Hope this helps.


Larika 03 Mar 2006, 01:28

Actually how would you know other's prescription by looking their "cuts" formed by their glasses?

for example, this pic

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a100/kuusel/pg092.jpg

and we could only notice her glasses is a kind of (-) glasses.

But I've heard the refractive index of the lenses does affect the position of the "cuts", is that possible a strong prescription could be reduced like the above pic.

and what's the difference of the "cuts" between a 1.5 lens and a 1.9 lens, I think the 1.5 lens would bent less so the lens would be much thicker... yet would the "cuts" be less significant?


Tod 01 Feb 2006, 14:08

http://www.eboards4all.com/175280/messages/243.html


Tod 01 Feb 2006, 14:07

http://www.eboards4all.com/175280/messages/243.html


Ted 31 Jan 2006, 14:35

Two detached retina, righteye, I'm nearsighted right eye, Vision is 20/50 corrected. Bifocal right eye is taken over by my near sightness, so I dont have a bifocal?? but I do. Regular vision somewhat distorted. Why cant they give me a bifocal with more power. I'm at 250 right now.


presbyopia_23 21 Jan 2006, 21:19

I also tried monovision contacts but its annoying being able to see clearly with only one eye. With glasses I see clearly with both eyes and I take em off to read.

I dont like wearing glasses but I like the clear vision thru glasses. My 20/400 UCVA is too poor to go without correction for anything more than about a foot from me. My brother is only a -1.25 so he sees fine without glasses, lucky him!


Tammy 21 Jan 2006, 12:48

Presbyopia_23

Do you wear glasses or do you just like them? If you are a wearer, what is your Rx? I haven't recieved my new glasses yet. I guess there was a mix up with the insurance or something. :( Hopefully that will be straightened out soon.


Tod 21 Jan 2006, 11:10

Today I am wearing monovision contact lenses instead of my varifocal glasses. There is a little getting used to seeing this way. I can only read with my left eye and can only see distance with my right one. My left eye can only see clearly out to 18 inches away.


 21 Jan 2006, 11:05


presbyopia_23 20 Jan 2006, 23:35

Oh my mistake! So how are you doing madam? I read about your dilemna and that your glasses didnt come out right. Does pushing them closer/further from your nose help? What about tilting them? Are you still able to drive if you arent seeing 20/40?

Feel free to ask me anything you want :) I love talking about vision anything :)


Tammy 20 Jan 2006, 14:37

I don't know where to post this so i will put it here. Yesterday, i was at the club, and there were 3 or 4 of us chatting, and somehow the subject got turned to glasses and pretty soon i was telling them my Rx and we were saying how blind we are without our glasses. It was a very interesting conversation, from my point of view, naturally.


Tammy 20 Jan 2006, 14:31

Thanks, Julian. I am indeed female. Maybe Presbyopia thought the "A" in my user name was an "O".

Presbyopia, i will give you the benefit of the doubt. No hard feeling between us, ok?


Julian 20 Jan 2006, 06:13

presbyopia_23: I rather think Tammy is one of our lady members ::)


Wei 20 Jan 2006, 05:22

Tammy I hope new glasses improvement. If having still difficulty consider myodisc. For small print use old weaker glasses.


presbyopia_23 20 Jan 2006, 01:56

Jeremy, I read your thread. Your 20/200 in your -3 eye and a bit shy of 20/200 in your -3.75 eye. This makes you a moderate myope(range -3 to -5.75) I am -4.5 in one eye and -5 in the other also making me a moderate myope but considerabily worse than you. You might want to wear glasses full time except when reading something, youll be able to see it clearly from 13" I see clearly from just 9" :( My uncorrected vision is barely 20/400 so im twice as bad as you. We dont like glasses but our vision is bad enough that we dont have a choice except for reading.

"My new Rx is OD -13.25 -1.00 x 10 and OS -12.50 -1.25 x 134."

I read about Tammy's dilemna. He used to be corrected to 20/40 partially due to glasses minification, partially due to astigmastim and also due to the nature of his very high myopia. I was thinking this: can you try moving your glasses closer or further from your nose? It could be a vertex distance issue. As for presbyopia, thats normal, you are 40! Its true high minus glasses are slightly forgiving because they make things seem further away.


Tod 18 Jan 2006, 14:34

Tammy, everybody becomes presbyopic by age 40. Hyperopes get the symptoms usually earlier. Myopes later because they can use their near vison to compensate. Bifocals are prescribed. I knew a girl who is nearsighted but has a lot of astigmatism and has had to wear bifocals sense age 12.


Tammy 17 Jan 2006, 15:25

My new lenses will be regular plastic lenses. Not high index or myodiscs as i originally thought. I can hardly wait to get them.


Tammy 16 Jan 2006, 14:31

Wei,

Thanks for the information. Maybe i'll give them a try.


Wei 16 Jan 2006, 11:23

Tammy you may find regular myodisc better than blend myodisc. I find this also. I recommend you try, I find vision better with myodisc than regular lens. RX is now -17.


Tammy 16 Jan 2006, 09:50

Thanks. Will do.


Puffin 16 Jan 2006, 03:23

Tammy, here's hopeing things will be OK for you in future, and do please keep us updated if anything else happens.


Cactus Jack 15 Jan 2006, 17:19

Steve: Vision really occurs in the brain. The brain will automatically select the best image and use that one as the primary source and it seems to use some of the secondary image if it can to construct a 3 D image.

C.


Tammy 15 Jan 2006, 16:05

As far as myodiscs are concerned, i've had them before. They actually were blended myodiscs, which i really did not like. I've never tried the regular myodiscs, so i don't know how i would like them. As far as the lower va is concerned i don't know what is the cause of that.


Steve 15 Jan 2006, 14:30

Cactus Jack

Thanks for your reply. Does that mean that where the prescription in both eyes is different, then the 'overall visual acuity' of that person is the lowest of the two? i.e. if one eye was -2 and the other -4, is that person's vision with both eyes nearer to -2 then -4?

The latter prescription is mine and I wear fulltime but the other was a friend of mine who only wears for driving and tv etc. My prescription is very similar in both eyes but my brother has -1 difference between eyes and he says that with both eyes he sees the equivalent to his right(stronger eye) its not until he covers the stronger eye up that the vision deteriorates.


Wei 15 Jan 2006, 13:59

Tammy you think you need of myodisc soon? Is aciuty worsen due to astegmatism?


Tammy 15 Jan 2006, 09:58

You're right i don't drive. As far as my va is concerned, yes it does impact my view of the world. In regards to my age, i'm in my 40's.


Puffin 15 Jan 2006, 03:52

Tammy, does your visual acuity have an effect on the way you see the world, other than eyecharts? Yes, I realise you shouldn't be driving. And your astimagtism seems to change all the time, "???" comes to mind. Oh... how old are you?


Tammy 14 Jan 2006, 19:26

I really don't know why my visual acuity has gone down. The optometrist said that i am missing pieces of letters. Also, get this...he said that now, not only am i highly nearsighted, but now i am also presbyopic...lol. I do realize that it's fairly rare for someone as nearsighted as i am to have presbyopia too.


Puffin 14 Jan 2006, 18:24

Tammy, I was going to say something very like what Tod said. How come it's gone down??


Cactus Jack 14 Jan 2006, 18:14

Steve: Uncorrected, #2 has the poorest vison because the images from both eyes are blurry. #1 obviously has the poorest monocular vision in the left eye but fairly good distance vision in the right eye. If the astigmaitsm were corrrected #1 would have good "natural monovision" by using the right eye for distance and the left eye for reading. The left eye is focused at 13 inches (33 cm).

C.


Tammy 14 Jan 2006, 18:02

The optometrist told me that my prescription went up in one eye and down in the other.


Tod 14 Jan 2006, 12:57

Tammy, I may be all wet but your new Rx that you posted seems less strong than your old Rx. Maybe that's why you are only seeing 20/50 and 20/60 instead of 20/40. Best check back with your optom about this.


Jamie 14 Jan 2006, 07:43

To whoever asked how I was getting on, I have been wearing my new glasses all the time. The fact that my mate said something about how blind I'd become as well as my girlfriend made me realise that I should be wearing them. Also, for the first couple of days after getting the glasses I sometimes took them off at home and things seemed really blurry without them.

I've really got depdendent on wearing them, for the first few days it felt a bit strange wearing them, now I don't notice that I've got them on anymore and it's the odd occasion when I've not got them on that it feels strange. However, I still haven't quite got used to the way I look in them, if I see myself in the mirror, the reflection looks odd still.


Tammy 13 Jan 2006, 16:07

Puffin,

Yes, i am concerned about it.


hi 13 Jan 2006, 05:16

Steve

#1


Puffin 13 Jan 2006, 03:15

That's progressing worryingly fast... (I suppose you know that)


Tammy 12 Jan 2006, 22:44

Puffin,

With my glasses, my vision will be corrected to 20/50 right eye and 20/60 left eye.


Puffin 12 Jan 2006, 17:11

Tammy

I think your astigmatism has changed from last time? I can't really remember, anyway, hope all is well as it can be. :) Curious about what your cva is now.


Tammy 12 Jan 2006, 15:50

Puffin,

Yes, i am still having problems in that area...and more so now than ever. I am waiting for my new glasses to come in. I am getting some brown metal frames. Hopefully they will come in soon.


Puffin 12 Jan 2006, 15:20

Hello Tammy, are you stil having trouble with corrected visual acuity?


Steve 12 Jan 2006, 11:57

Which of these two prescriptions would you think has the poorest vision?

1)L-3.00, -0.75x180, R plano -1.00x 150

2)L -2.00, 0.25X30, R -2.00


Tammy 12 Jan 2006, 08:06

My new Rx is OD -13.25 -1.00 x 10 and OS -12.50 -1.25 x 134.


 08 Jan 2006, 22:39

Jamie

How much stronger are your new lenses? Are you still wearing them all day now?


 08 Jan 2006, 17:04

what is the new prescription?


Tammy 08 Jan 2006, 16:33

I just had an eye exam and have gotten a new Rx. I also picked out new glasses. They're taking their own sweet time in getting back to me, but hopefully soon my new glasses will be in my hand.


Hansel 05 Jan 2006, 13:43

Jamie

In your earlier post you noted that your eyes had got slightly worse, but you have noticed a real difference with your new ones.

Can you recall what the old prescription was?


Jamie 05 Jan 2006, 11:48

I picked up my new glasses this morning. I have worn them for most of the day, including work. Two things have struck me these glasses seem much stronger then my old ones and the lenses are much thicker, also when I took them off after I got home I noticed a real difference. Things seems much blurrier without them now. I havent actually decided if I am going to wear them full time, but I think the reality is that I need to be wearing them most of the time.

So far most of the comments have been positive, my girlfriend really likes them, one of my mates at work said it was about time I finally realised how blind I was (which makes me feel a bit stupid, I didnt think my eyesight was that bad). On the odd occasion Ive seen my reflection, I think I look strange wearing glasses, but I do quite like how they look.


Cactus Jack 01 Jan 2006, 02:13

Lazysiow: To keep from getting confused in my previous post, what I described is the view looking at trial frame (AO, I think) and describing what I saw.

If someone is refracting me, I always ask them to place my hand on the angle knob of the phoropter or trial frame so I can make the final adjustment.

C.


Lazysiow 31 Dec 2005, 21:10

oops typo there 74 = 64


Lazysiow 31 Dec 2005, 21:08

I thought 0 and 180 would be the same, I thought it might have been say 0 for left eye and 180 for right eye for whatever reason.

The axis in my right eye is 156, but if the maximum is 180 that means substract 40 degrees? Then that would mean rotating the angle clockwise. I get worse vision that way so it can't be right. When it comes to straight lines i.e. 90 and 180, either side is equivalent but otherwise the direction is wrong.

Using 90 as my midpoint to determine left or right, clockwise = 116 = 90+26 and counterclockwise = 64. Okay using my old prescription if I rotate down to 74, my vision is pretty good. Things are supposed to skew to the top right for what I need.

The problem is using the system you described and also described here, 156 would mean things skew to the top left, not the top right. Either I'm missing something or whoever did my current prescription buggered it up.

Hence the reason I dont want to get another eye exam lol, they've never been able to get my right eye quite right each time even though I know what looks good for me if I move the lens around a bit.


Cactus Jack 31 Dec 2005, 20:13

Lasysiow: Looking at your face, 0 and 180 are the same angle (horizontal) 90 is vertical and the rotation from 0 to 90 to 179 or 180 is counterclockwise.

I have seen Rx writen as 0 or 180 for the horizontal axis but the axis is never written as more than 180.

Hope this helps.

C.


Lazysiow 31 Dec 2005, 19:08

Anyone know the difference between say 0 and 180? trying to come up with my own prescription. I know my astigmatism axis has changed 40 degrees in my right eye when I rotate the lens counterclockwise so do I subtract 40 degrees or add 40 degrees?


Andrew 31 Dec 2005, 12:01

I can't answer your question, atrici, as in those days, there was no obligation on the optician to tell you it, and my sight was not good enough to see what was written down at the patient - optician's desk distance. It happened because I was at School, and was putting my glasses on before the start of a lesson, and then removing them at the end, walking to another room bare-eyed, and then putting them on again. This seemed a bit pointless, so I started wearing them full time. With hindsight, I would guess I was about -4.00ish, but I'm not at all certain.


Clare 31 Dec 2005, 05:01

I have more glasses/contacts-wearing friends now than I've ever had. That should make for some conversations. What's interesting is when they started wearing them - one got glasses at 18 and is still only -2.75. I got them nearly 10 years after but we're still at the same rx. How is that?


-5.00 who luvs gwgs 30 Dec 2005, 15:56

I have never been told to wear glasses full time At first at 8 years told to wear them for TV and blackboard very low prescription then -1.00? By the time I was about 25 when I was left -3.50 -0.50 right -2.50 -0.50 I was wearing them about 50% of the time got to about -4.00 and -3.00 and went full time .Wish I had gone full time at age 8 although I have always suspected that not going full time did slow down rate of progression as since I was 25 has progressed to -5.50 and -4.25 plus astigmatism I have suspected I would have got to maybe -8.00 if I had always been fulltime as rate of progress when in my teens quite slow when trying to go bare eyed


atrici 30 Dec 2005, 10:12

Andrew

What was that critical 3rd prescription? Best new year wishes.


Andrew 30 Dec 2005, 09:45

Jamie,

I have never been told to wear my glasses full time, but now that I'm -8, I don't have much option. With my first glasses, I didn't want to be told to wear them full time. I started doing so with my third pair.


Clare 30 Dec 2005, 08:58

Jamie - Hollie's right, just wear them! Don't be shy like me, it's just stupid. Or, if you are, do like I do and get some contacts. The worst thing is the fear of people's comments, at least if you go for contacts you can use that as a reason if/when you are faced with questions.

Hi Hollie - how are you?


Wei 30 Dec 2005, 03:49

yes i agreement hollie choose glasses look nice and will be much better than blur vision. Also agree have contact - vision very good.


Hollie 30 Dec 2005, 03:30

Jamie, I agree with Julian, just wear them! I couldn't wear my contacts for 6 months so I went around in a blur, I was about -3.50 and had astigmatism too. Looking back I was stupid not to wear them all the time. I had to squint to see anything further than about a foot away clearly, and couldn't recognise friends in the street. I only wore them for university and driving.

Now I'm around -4 and always wear some sort of correction, sometimes glasses and sometimes contacts. Get contacts if you can- I know I feel a lot more comfortable in mine, more confident.

But you'll definitely look better with a well-chosen pair of glasses on your face than squinting all the time- guaranteed!


Wei 30 Dec 2005, 01:42

Yes Jeremy Julian is corect. Perhaps ask girlfriend for choose glasses?


Julian 29 Dec 2005, 17:28

Jeremy: your eyes are bad; you don't know where they're going? May as well be realistic: they're getting worse and likely to go on getting worse; you can expect to need stronger glasses every year or two till they stabilize, probably sometime in your twenties. You are alrady short-sighted enough to be at a disadvantage if you go around without correction, so you need to get over your hang-up about wearing your glasses full time - or if you can't do that get contacts. You aren't alone in this; there are thousands, millions even, in the same position.

Jamie, you're another; for pity's sake, your girl friend likes you to wear your specs; just keep them on and enjoy the view!


Brian 29 Dec 2005, 05:52

Jamie, When was the last time that your girlfriend had her eyes tested? You should try to get her to go to the eye doctor and who knows, maybe she will need glasses and you can bug her and try to get her to wear her glasses.


Wei 29 Dec 2005, 05:03

Jeremy you will probably need glasses all time but I know of person wear glasses part-time and is -5 so maybe you manage OK!


Jeremy 29 Dec 2005, 03:39

Julian

Yah, my eyes are bad I'm 17, so I don't know where my eyes are going. But as of late I've noticed my eyes are strained a lot more and I get headaches a lot easier.

I just need to get over the whole fear thing of wearing them. But, yah I can see great with them which is good, I just find it hard to read somethings from a difference when I notice friends of mine can see it w/o correction or with their correction and some have worse vision than me. It isn't a huge thing, but I'd really like to see with full correction 100%.


Wei 29 Dec 2005, 03:31

I agree is no point waiting for permission to wear glasses or contact if you not able see you make decision yourself! Is not good having ask people all time what sign say.


Cactus Jack 28 Dec 2005, 18:25

Puffin: True, but I think she likes the glasses.

C.


Puffin 28 Dec 2005, 16:37

If your girlfriend has a problem with your glasses, perhaps the real problem is the girlfriend not the glasses?


Cactus Jack 28 Dec 2005, 14:03

Jamie: I can understand why your gf is annoyed with you. A person with a -3.00 Rx is a nuisance (and not much fun to be around) when not wearing their glasses or contacts. Because everything beyond 13 in (33 cm) is a blur, they either have to squint, struggle, or be constantly asking someone to tell them what something says when they ought to be able to read it with a glance.

Also, I'm a little annoyed because I don't understand why some people think they need someone else's permission to see well, without effort, all the time. I know people with a plus or minus 0.25 who would not even consider not wearing their glasses all the time. It is YOUR vison, YOUR glasses, and YOUR decision.

Your gf probably likes you better when you are wearing your glasses for several reasons, but if you are lucky, she may even have a slight glasses fetish. If so, enjoy!

C.


Wei 28 Dec 2005, 13:29

Jamie why you not wear glasses all time it seem you want wear them anyway so is not problem, see? Is no point not to wear glasses i think. Get contacts if you not like wear glasses all time.


Jamie 28 Dec 2005, 11:54

Im wondering at what strength people usually start to wear their glasses all of the time. My girlfriend who has got perfect sight has been getting irritated with me recently for not being able to see things properly. Ive just ordered some new glasses which my girlfriend wants me to wear all the time.

Ive had glasses for two years, since I started to drive. Usually I just wear them for driving or when Im in a lecture at university. I know that recently my eyes have changed and that things arent as clear with my glasses on as they used to be and Ive started to wear them a bit more often, I now use them to watch television or at the cinema. The other thing that Ive noticed is that before I used to take my glasses off as soon as Id finished lectures, driving, etc, but now I sometimes leave them on.

Most of the time at home and for things like shopping, socialising and work Ive been going around without my glasses. My girlfriend has been getting annoyed recently that Ive been squinting a bit and cant always see things clearly. I got a reminder card from the optician just before Christmas. My girlfriend booked the appointment, convinced that Id be told to wear my glasses all the time.

I went for my check up today. As I suspected, my eyes have got slightly worse: my new prescription is left eye 3.00, -0.25, 90; right eye 3.00. The optician did not offer any advice about how often I should wear my new glasses, but she may well think that I already wear them full time, because I had them on when I went in and after the test when she took off the trial frames she gave me back my old glasses and said that I could put them back on, which I did. After the sight test, my girlfriend and I spent some time choosing new glasses, which should be ready later in the week.

I guess the fact that Im starting to leave my glasses on once Ive put them on is a good indication of the fact that I probably should be wearing them more often. Also, by doing so I will please my girlfriend. However, I dont know if I really want to wear them most/all of the time. Any advice would be appreciated.


Julian 28 Dec 2005, 03:58

Good grief Jeremy, a first prescription of -3.00/-3.75? As you've only learned to drive in the past year I imagine you're in your late teens - how did you cope in school? At that age it's fairly normal for myopia to get worse with or without glasses; you can't put it down to wearing them, and after all you need them to see. Some people reckon that if you take them off for close work that can slow the progression down.


Jeremy 27 Dec 2005, 23:54

Yah, I think I should get stronger glasses. I mean I can see pretty clear with the ones I have on now, but I mean there is something I still have to kinda focus on to see. I am -3 in the left eye and -3.75 in the right eye, if I remember off the top of my head.

When I first got my glasses (these are my first pair ever). Before that I was squinting a lot and everything was a blur, when I got my glasses I kinda chicken out and didn't wear them, but more and more I noticed I just had to have them. So maybe that made my vision a lot worse? But, for a while I have been wearing them full time. And even when I don't wear them I think I am squinting all the time, just naturally.

I also believe like you my right eye is significantly worse than my left eye with and without my glasses. Plus I want new frames :). So, I probably should visit the eye doctor very soon. Because I do like my vision crisp.


Glinthia 27 Dec 2005, 21:03

Hi Jeremy,

Your eyesight is really bad, but mine is not much better than yours. I wear -9.5 in my right eye while -1.75 in my left eye, and I have quite significant astigmatism in my right eye. It's very uncomfortable to drive without my glasses of course. I have another -1.5 glasses for both eyes. (That's a fake prescription, I just try it for fun) And I can see everything comfortably by covering my right eye. Yes, I sometimes cover my right eye in order to see things more clearly, it disturb my sight.


Jeremy 27 Dec 2005, 07:16

I can see decent when I'm driving. When I took the eyetest for the driver's licence 9 months ago. I passed it with my glasses on, but I noticed I had to focus for a second, and it could be clearer. I have kinda been embarassed by having to wear glasses so I really hadn't until then. But, I would rather have as clear vision as possible, because squinting is annoying.


Julian 27 Dec 2005, 07:07

If you drive a car or anything of that sort you need new glasses. Get a test. If you're happy with the blur carry on with the ones you have. But a test every two years makes sense anyway.


Jeremy 27 Dec 2005, 04:33

hey all..

I took that test on the eye chart and I tested I think 20/400.But I don't know if it is accurate, because on the snellan chart I could make out 20/200 with a lot of fuzz, I made it out, but I think I squinted. When I took the picture test it was very hard to make out. The 20/200 line I couldn't see at all..the 20/400 I barely made out with a squint. So, I put on my glasses and I could only see to the 20/60 line. When I did the letters I could see down to 20/40..so any suggestions. I haven't had an eye test for two years and that was the last time I got my glasses. I never remember my vision being that bad.

So do I test to where I can see clear or the time where I can barely make out the letter or picture...any who, I don't think with my glasses I can quite make out 20/40-20/60. So is it time for a lot stronger pair of eyeglasses or will these do?


antonio 17 Nov 2005, 09:10

Hi Nicole

it's possible your worse right eye is undercorrected

or it changed in any other way, you should make an eye test again.

If you see worse with that right eye things far away wearing the -2,75 lens in front possibly it's to weak for that eye

if you get headaches when reading close using your glasses it could be something else

if you are without glasses at all, probably your better eye does all the work

which could cause inconveniences too

best regards

antonio


DWV 16 Nov 2005, 21:30

This is a how-to guide for Ophthalmic Assistants on how to test vision, perform refractions, and prescribe glasses.

"Quality Assurance In Refraction"

http://laico.org/v2020resource/files/QA_refractiveerror.pdf


DWV 15 Nov 2005, 22:53

Criteria for prescribing optometric interventions: literature review and practitioner survey

Authors: O'Leary C.I.; Evans B.J.W.

Source: Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, Volume 23, Number 5, September 2003, pp. 429-439(11)

Publisher: Blackwell Publishing

The core function of optometrists is the prescribing of refractive corrections, yet a literature review revealed a lack of evidence-based research on criteria for determining when a refractive correction is required. The reported criteria used by practising optometrists were investigated using a questionnaire to survey prescribing habits for borderline hypermetropia, presbyopia, astigmatism, and horizontal and vertical heterophoria. Thirty-eight questionnaires were returned and the results analysed. We calculated the cut off point above which the anomaly would be corrected over 50% of the time that it was encountered. There was a large variation for each category, but it was clear that the presence or absence of symptoms was an important factor for most optometrists when deciding whether to correct a small error. It was found that for symptomatic patients, most optometrists would correct an anomaly if it reached: +1.00 D of hypermetropia, a reading addition of +0.75 D for presbyopia, -0.75 DC of astigmatism, 1.5 prism dioptres () of horizontal aligning prism, and 1 of vertical dissociated heterophoria. For asymptomatic patients, optometrists would not correct any of the hypermetropic anomalies or heterophorias that were specified in our questionnaire. However most would correct a presbyopic error of +1.50 D or above, or an astigmatic error of -1.50 DC or above, even in the absence of symptoms. These results were compared with previously published guidelines.


Nicole 10 Nov 2005, 13:58

Presbyopia_23

Just saw your other question - without correction my right eye feels like much much worse than the other one. The left one obviously does all the work in that case.


Nicole 10 Nov 2005, 13:54

Wei

It seemed strong then but I had a smaller increase and now I wonder if it was right after all. Individually I could see fine through each eye but close it felt odd

Presbyopia_23

If I compare eyes I can see better through the left but its not a real problem with my glasses on. I wear my glasses for distance not near and after a while not wearing them I get discomfort. I wondered if this is a sign of undercorrection.


Wei 10 Nov 2005, 11:32

Nicole i know of problem this happen when i around -12 and lens precibe of -13.5 so much disconfort follow. I not know of reason.


presbyopia_23 10 Nov 2005, 06:05

how well do you see with those glasses of yours in each eye? How well without correction? If you feel the pescription is wrong, tell the optometrist this and ask for an eye exam with those glasses on


Nicole 09 Nov 2005, 22:17

Two years ago I got an eyetest and came away with a prescription of -2 and -3.50. I was convinced it was wrong - I couldn't believe my eyes could get so bad - so I got a retest. I came away with -2.25 and -2.75 and felt much better. Now I can see fine through the eye with the lower prescription but not so good with the -2.75 eye and I often feel alot of strain in it. Is it possible that the first prescription was actually right for me, has anyone heard of this sort of reaction before?


presbyopia_23 09 Nov 2005, 20:16

This article is over 4 years old. Much has changed by then. This isnt the forum to discuss lasik though, theres one titled refractive sugury


Slit 09 Nov 2005, 18:33

Disasterous effects of LASIK,

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/31/health/main327664.shtml


Bob W 09 Nov 2005, 16:32

My 2 bits:

The distance in inches is referring to the 'far point', the theoretical maximum distance of clear vision until you first notice any blur, typically with small print in myopia.

Best regards, Bob W


myofan 08 Nov 2005, 16:20

Clare, Those numbers are MAXIMUM distances. You should be able to easily read up to roughly 10 or 12 inches away, but not a lot further. Make sense?


Clare 08 Nov 2005, 14:23

DWV - does this have any caveats or age guidelines? I just checked and I can easily read at 6" but am only -2.75. I'm in my late 30s so I guess I should be grateful!!


presbyopia_23 08 Nov 2005, 14:21

of: Acuity Print at:

-1.00 20/40 40 inches

-2.00 20/100 20 inches

-3.00 20/200 13 inches

-4.00 less than 20/200 10 inches

There :) I agree with the near point test. I can see clearly from 8 inches or 1/5 meter which goes in accrodance with my -5 diopters. I have corrected the 20/something. There is no way your gonna be this bad at 20/80 with only -1 diopters. I know I was 20/50 at -1 and thats with a 20/25 BCVA. I woulda been 20/40 if I was 20/20 with glasses. -2 diopters results in an accuracy of 20/100 for many people(some even 20/70) but I can see it being worse than that if your BCVA is less than 20/20, Somewhere between 20/100 and 20/200. -3 diopters results in 20/200 if your BCVA is 20/25 or better, sometimes 20/30. -4 is generally the limit for 20/200 and youd need a BCVA of like 20/15.

Theres alot of disagreement how diopters correlates to 20/something and the "rule" can vary on the person, their BCVA, even in the setting and light. A good rule that applies for most people is -1 20/40 -2 20/100 -3 20/200


DWV 08 Nov 2005, 01:27

So much for carefully aligning the columns using spaces... anyway, the column headings should be "Myopia of:", "Distance Acuity", and "Reads Fine Print at:"


DWV 08 Nov 2005, 01:24

I spotted this table while browsing through the how-to parts of the Reichert Phoroptor pdf manual (obligatory attribution).

Myopia Distance Reads Fine

of: Acuity Print at:

-1.00 20/80 40 inches

-2.00 20/200 20 inches

-3.00 20/400 13 inches

-4.00 less than 20/400 10 inches


presbyopia_23 05 Nov 2005, 03:46

whats your BCVA with those -10 glasses? I am assuming 20/25 due to glasses minification where that line would be about the size of the 20/20 line if you have contacts or for someone whos plano. Therefore a -1 diopter undercorrection will indeed result in 20/50 or "half vision accuracy" I tested my sister's friend who can read the 20/13 line then I give her +1 glasses and shes not quite 20/25 but can see all of the 20/30 with +1.5 she sees 20/40.

To the guy who can see 20/80 with -2.25 and worse than 20/100 with -2.75, this also goes accurately with diopters vs. 20/xxx but you are a mild myope and have functional uncorrected vision, especially in your better -2.25 eye


Emily ----BB 02 Nov 2005, 06:02

Hi Emily how you doing long time since seen you in here, you were a gem in the chat room miss our little chats. I was chatting to your friend from Lancashire the other night, her glasses are -14, she is a lovely lady, I do fancy her, but we are not compatiable because of her faith we are opposites, still we do have a nice friendship, I hope I see you in here more. Hope your enjoying life, see you RX has jumped alot, hope it soon settles dowm. Take care Emily. BB (Arnold) xx


Emily 01 Nov 2005, 15:54

Hi, Lauren,

I'm also nearsighted, but more so than you. I'm in the -10 range, and I'vce had 13 different prescriptions since I bedgan wearing glasses, so I've learned a lot about prescriptions and vision. When I go for an eye exam and my vision with my old glasses is 20/50, my new preswcription is usually aboyut -1.00 stronger. One time I pushed my exam off until my vision was 20/70 and my new lenses weree either -1.25 or -1.50 stronger, I forget which. So with 20/100 vision, you will probably need between -1.50 and -2.00 more of correction (assuming your self-test is accurate). I'd schedule an eye exam without delay! You will love how well you will see through your new glasses. Goold luck!


Cactus Jack 01 Nov 2005, 14:19

lauren - The reason you haven't received good answers is that the questions you asked are nearly impossible to answer without long explanations - sort of like asking what is the square root of orange.

Part of the problem is that we don't know the actual size of the letters on the chart as you viewed it nor the distance. Maybe, this will help a little.

An eye chart of the size used in a doctors office is designed to be seen sharp and clear at a distance of 20 feet. A 'normal' eye can read the 20/20 line with ease and may be able to make out a few letters on the 20/15 line, but it takes effort and guess work. it is not significant if they can't.

To a nearsighted person the chart will be fuzzy, but there is no accurate optical power correlation between the degree of fuzzyiness (is it a little fuzzy or a lot fuzzy?) and the Rx required to make it clear. Based on what you said, I would guess that you need an additional -0.50 to -1.00 power in your glasses to see the chart sharp and clear and read the 20/20 line easily at 20 feet. The only way to determine the exact amout is an eye exam.

BTW, an eye exam is not a test in the academic sense, you can't "fail" it. The object is to determine what optical correction (if any) you need to see as clearly as you can.

Good luck. Get an eye exam, get some attractive new glasses - if you need them - and get on with your life. Not seeing well is a bummer.

C.


Puffin 01 Nov 2005, 13:55

Lauren, you should take the test with the glasses you have now. I assume you're a full-time wearer. As for the chart itself - yes, you need to correctly identify all the letters on a given line to get that level of acuity. It doesn't how the letter looks, but obviously if you're squinting like crazy and pushing the glasses against your face, etc, well, I think that's a bit of a cheat that won't fool anyone, certainly not an optician.

As for the scaling factor, I'm reasonably sure that the size of the letters on a normal chart (on a wall) is in proportion to the distance at which it should be read at. This nice site does the scaling for you according to distance. I think if you do it from nearer to the computer screen, the site might rescale the letters so you can check the in-between lines. BTW if you try it too close up, the site doesn't have a row of letters small enough to test you with.


Julian 01 Nov 2005, 13:33

Lauren, it seems to me you could get the best answer to your query by trying the online test with your glasses on.


lauren 01 Nov 2005, 12:35

I posted earlier down the page - can anyone help me please?


Vic 30 Oct 2005, 19:55

I would still think its worth to wear them.


Ardief 30 Oct 2005, 16:03

I would say their logic is seriously flawed. After all, the issue is not the level of correction, it's the difficulty in functioning uncorrected. Even a prescription that is slightly insufficient would provide a level of functionality. I agree, Puffin, it's a pretty feeble excuse.


Puffin 30 Oct 2005, 15:45

Here's a question, if I may. If one had a small prescription, say minus 1.5, and had glasses made to correct this - then the prescription goes up to say minus 1.75 or 2, could you say that it's not worth wearing the glasses full time because they're the wrong prescription? Or do you think that, as I do, that this is a feeble excuse from someone who doesn't want to wear them?

(ps this is based on real-world friend, would appreciate answers!)


lauren 30 Oct 2005, 11:58

Patrick B

I think you may have thought those were the results with glasses, but it was without them. Thanks


Patrick B 30 Oct 2005, 08:04

Lauren,

Your eyes have got substantially more myopic, and you'd probably benefit from going for an exam and getting a new prescription. I would venture to guess that you will need at least two diopters of additional correction to bring your vision up to 20/20. Clearly, you are no longer in the "low myope" range which goes up to -3. You're now in the "moderate" range of myopia which generally goes up to -6 before it is considered "high" myopia. If you are young and haven't had your eyes tested in over a year there is a very good chance that you have had a substantial increase in your myopia. Right now you shouldn't be driving a car without additional correction. You'd never pass a driving eye exam at this point, even with your glasses on. You might find that by tilting your glasses you can improve your acuity. Let us know how it goes.


Glasses are sexy 30 Oct 2005, 05:24

Hi all ladies who wear glasses, I think you are sexy sensuous and really attractive in glasses, I would never dream of dating a lady who was not a glasses wearer. I love high plus glasses, I love the big eyes as seen through the lenses, I love the look when you look over the top of the frames, I have found ladies who wear strong glasses can be shy at first, but they definately have beautiful personalities, also high plus glasses the lady behind them has beautiful eyes more so than ladies who don,t wear glasses. Ladies al you high plus or minus glasses wearers love you all. This from a guy who does not wear glasses or contacts.Admirer in the post room.


lauren` 30 Oct 2005, 01:22

Sorry, I meant how could I check the difference between 20/100 and 20/200 not 20/100 as I said.


lauren 30 Oct 2005, 01:21

I've just done this online eyetest http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/oph/ped/IVAC/IVAC.html With my right eye which has a -2.75 presecription I failed the 20/100 letters. In the left which is -2.25 I could get away with saying I could read the 20/80. I have 3 questions - anyone know how I can check where my right eye is between 20/100 and 20/100 (that's the only option awvailable) and when you say you can read the letter, does it have to absolutely clear or is it okay just to be able to recognise it, blurry or not? And does anyone know if those results would be similar to what I'm wearing now? Thanks


Cactus Jack 26 Oct 2005, 19:13

Geoffrey - I also want to thank you for telling us about your experiences. I also want to complement you and your wife for your attitude and can do sprit. I wish you every success in your law careers. Hopefully, since both of you are young, some of the almost unbelievable research into artificial vision directly to the visual cortex of the brain will bear fruit and your and your wife will benefit from it.

Lentifan - I had cataract surgery with IOLs in July of 2001 and I have never regreted it for an instant. Prior to surgery, my Rx was R -1.50, -1.00 x 110 and L -2.75, -1.50 x 73.

The IOLs are R +16.50, L +13.00.

My current Rx is R -1.25, -0.25 x 90, L +0.25, -1.25 x 75.

With glasses (trifocals) I have slightly better than 20/20 in both eyes.

The Dr. suggested that one eye be as close to 20/20 as possible and the other eye slightly nearsighted (monovision). With current IOLs you have no ability to focus and with the monovision, I don't absolutely have to wear glasses if they are inconvenient. For example: if I have to get up at night, I can read medicine bottles etc. without my glasses and if I had to, here in Texas, I could drive without my glasses if I needed to (though I can't imagine why I would want to).

Also, if I want to, I can do reasonable ranges of GOC, + / - 20 approximately, without super special $$$ contacts.

BTW, the surgery was an incredible experience. The story is too long for a post. I intend to write it up and maybe Bobby will publish it on his site if enough people are interested.

C.


Geoffrey 26 Oct 2005, 11:34

Lentifan: You are right, with my "reading" lens, I am very clost to the material to read, about 4", but can manage 14 point and sometimes 12 point if it is veery bold and black.

Puffin: I don't know what CVA "requires" a white cane, it is a personal thing. The white cane is used both for navigation, to feel for obstacles, and for identification, so other people know a person is visually impared, or partially sighted. I have used one since I was 10 or 11. On the other hand, my wife first got one when she was around 3 or 4. Oct. 15 every year is "White Cane Safety Day" to make people aware of those of us who use them.


Puffin 26 Oct 2005, 02:03

Another question for Geoffrey, or anyone else who might know: at what point in terms of CVA does a white stick become obligatory or basically a good idea, because otherwise you'd be falling over all the time? I'm talking about in broad daylight, here, of course.


lentifan 24 Oct 2005, 15:53

Thanks for your reply again, Geoffrey.

You are to be congratulated on being so active despite your poor vision. Good luck to you and your wife in your law studies.

I guess that when reading with your +28 lens you must need to be pretty close to the print. Does this enable you to read smaller than 18-point?


Clare 21 Oct 2005, 23:28

Irritant - I agree with what others have said about different types of CLs and varying degrees of comfort. I first started with daily disposables but, like you, found they could be uncomfortable toward the end of the day. I now mostly wear the 2-weekly disposable type and find them much more comfortable and for longer. Try another brand or type, you may find that they're much better for you.


DWV 21 Oct 2005, 22:52

Also cats, domestic and wild:

http://www.unbc.ca/nlui/wildlife_diseases_bc/toxoplasmosis.htm


Julie 21 Oct 2005, 22:36

No, toxoplasmosis is not just found in tropical environments! A very very high proportions of pigeons in cities (at least in Europe, where I am from) are infected with toxoplasmosis. I had a friend who once adopted a wounded pigeon and cared for it in her apartement, and she fell sick with the disease. Her doctor thought she had mononeucleosis for a very long time (as the symptoms are very similar) and she was only diagnosed correctly when she didn't get better, and brought up the pigeon story!


Geoffrey 21 Oct 2005, 10:38

Lentifan: I don't know if Toxoplasmosis is found usually in just tropical countries or not. We were in Africa, at that time Congo, where my folks were missionaries.

As to what I can or can't do, I can do almost everything I want. Obviously, I cant drive, and have little night or peripheral vision. For sports, I swim (with +20 prescription goggles), can't do sports that require depth perception. In college I was on a rowing crew. I also ski (with a guide) occasionally.

What I see is rather little. I can see fairly well out to about 8-10ft. Make out faces at 5-7ft. Read 18 point type at about 6-8in. I use a white collapsible cane, and hand held magnifiers and a CCTV system. My wife and I both went to college in Boston and are now in law school there. The public transportation system is very good and free to the visually impared. For longer term reading, I have a pair of glasses with a +28 lens for the right and left occluded.


Andrew 21 Oct 2005, 10:19

When I had problems with dry eyes, my optician suggested washing my eyelids using cotton buds with a little Johnson's baby shampoo on them for a week or two. It seemed to help, as he was a lot more pleased the next time he saw me.


Myhopeinhere 21 Oct 2005, 03:05

I was on the Acuvue monthly disposables that you take out every night and like you sufferd from dry eyes and irritation,the optician had a look and found a blocked tear duct which she said wouldn't help the dry eyes.

She suggested I try the monthly disposables that you sleep in Bausch and lomb purevision,I told her I didn't want to sleep in them and was told take them out,I've been wearing them 6 months now,had no trouble at all,cost me 15 a month home delivery and the odd occasion I have sleptovernight in them no problem,only down side is the soloutions only come in a small bottle so every ouple of weeks have to get another bottle at 3 a go,hope this helps


Irritant 21 Oct 2005, 02:17

Thanks for your advice.

I have just changed to my next monthy lens and the problem still persists so I don't think it's got anything to do with an actual individual lens.

How much do contact lenses vary? I mean, are the cheaper ones 'the less comfortable ones'. My brother has changed to these o2 new optimax lenses but they are twice as expensive as my ones. In your opinion are these newer lenses twice as good or are they simply more expensive because they are new and marketed well?

I think next time I'm at the opticians I will mention that they irritate me - Does anyone know if these contact lenses from specsavers (I think pro-combatibles) are low in oxygen and are prone to drying your eyes out?


Random_Eye 20 Oct 2005, 14:57

Irritant

Well I think when the age thing starts to get to people there are in there 40s or 50s.

Have you looked at your contact really close to make sure nothing is one it. I also had a problem with mine once, there was a protein build up on it. I think thats what they said it was. Pretty much I had to go about a week not wearing them, get a new cl and I was good to go.

If you keep having trouble might not be a bad idea to go back to the doctor and let him take a look.


Myhopeinhere 20 Oct 2005, 14:57

I'm on the monthly disposables with specsavers the exrended wear ones,just go back and tell them they irritate you.

There are literally hundreds of types of lenses they can try you with so give it a go.They might try ones with a higher oxygen content or the like


Irritant 20 Oct 2005, 14:53

Random_Eye - I'm 23, female and have only worn contacts for a few years.


Random_Eye 20 Oct 2005, 14:21

Irritant whats your age? I know sometimes as people age they are no longer able to wear contacts. I am sure there are manything it could be.


Irritant 20 Oct 2005, 13:58

I'm having a lot of discomfort with my contact lenses recently. They are constantly irritating and my eyes are also really dry with them in. Any advice anyone? (Other than not wear them - that is not an option!). I have only been wearing them for 2 years and I wouldnt say that they have always been really comfortable but the past couple weeks/months I just don't seem to be able to tolerate them at all. I do have the cheapest brand (Specsavers 10 a month) - do you get what you pay for? Dya think it would be worth me spending a bit more?

I went for a contact lense check only last month and foolishly when asked if everything was fine I said yes! He said my eyes looked really healthy so I didnt like to say anything negative and look like a whimp!!

I guess some people say they ' can't wear contacts' - is it perhaps that I have entered into this category of people?! Anyone else worn contacts fine before and now can no longer wear them?

Many thanks! x


lentifan 19 Oct 2005, 15:29

Geoffrey

Thank you for answering my post.

I had never heard before of the condition Toxoplasmosis which caused your problem - is it confined to tropical countries?

Your lensectomies caused your Rx to increase from +4 to +22, but I suppose it was the retinal damage which has caused your unfortunate loss of VA. I note your advice about IOLs, but I still can't see why choosing spectacles rather than IOLs would substantially reduce VA. I can understand that the field of vision would be much reduced with spectacles and that there would be magnification and distortion away from the centre of the lens. But VA would be measured through the centre of the lens?

Is it possible that the people you know with lenticulars also have some other defect which is reducing their VA?

I would be interested to know how you cope with your reduced VA and your lenticulars - what you can and can't see, what activities you can and can't do, etc


Geoffrey 19 Oct 2005, 11:26

Lentifan: Before the lensectomy I had about +4 glasses. When I was 9-10 we were living abroad and my younger brother and I got Toxoplasmosis an infection thought caused by undercooked food. This went to Uveitis which came and went repeatedly over about 3 years and was treated by various medications (we were back home by then). I developed cataracts plus considerable retinal damage, hence the lensectomies, otherwise I would see nothing. My brother recovered fully and wears +5 glasses now (he's 2 years younger).

You mentioned the power of average glasses after lensectomies, I had heard that the natural lens is around +14.

If I were you, and speaking from some experience, I don't suggest not getting IOLs if you can get them. You can always do GOC if you want, but I don't know of anyone with lenticulars following a lensectomy whose CVA is 20/20.


lentifan 15 Oct 2005, 16:58

Geoffrey, thanks for telling us your Rx. It is very impressive!

Did you have a +Rx before your lensectomy or was it all the result of the lensectomy. I am interested in the range of Rx after lensectomy without implant, as I have the beginnings of cataracts and presumably will have lensectomy myself someday. I am already toying with the idea of refusing implants so I can wear glasses with + lenses, but your Rx surprises me as I think I read somewhere that the average post-cataract Rx is +11. Maybe that includes all the myopes who get cataracts and the shift is really more than that.

Do you have some other defect in addition to your aphakia which reduces your visual acuity?

Please excuse all the questions, Geoffrey, and I quite understand if you don't want to answer, but there are very few genuine wearers of very high Rx glasses and your experience is very valuable and interesting to us.


Geoffrey 14 Oct 2005, 11:50

Lentifan: My prescription is +22.0 +3.75 add +4.50 both eyes. I have had approximately the same since I had a lensectomy when I was 12 (23 now). They cannot implant IOLs, and I don't tolerate contacts of any sort. The CVA in my right eye is much better than the left (20/350 vs 20/550) so I really only use one eye.


Wei 14 Oct 2005, 10:57

Yes maverick I think many person over state of myopia or hypopia when rx is very low! I think all person with rx see improvements with glasses but not realize eyesight not very bad really.


Maverick 14 Oct 2005, 10:40

Did'nt see 'This Morning' today, but having seen Philip Scofield wearing specs a number of times I'd say -2.00 looks about right.

Not sure what motivates some people to have a need to crank up how 'blind' they are without glasses when in truth they are nothing of the sort.


 14 Oct 2005, 09:55

Did any UK people watch This morning today? They had an article about those contact lenses you wear at night which supposedly do away with the need for comtacts/glasses in the day. Phillip Schofield was the guinea pig and he referred to his sight as being badly shortsighted. I couldn't quite make out his precription on the screen but I think it said -2.00 - did anyone else see it and could read it? If I am right in thinking it was -2.00 then he was making out it was a lot worse than that! He said that he would have to get someone to lead him to the exit if he had to get out in the middle of the night - which is unlikely with this prescription! Being a -3.00 myself I could more than easily function without correction in such an event!


lentifan 13 Oct 2005, 13:18

Geoffrey

I was curious to know how strong the girl's lenses were. Could you tell us what your glasses prescription is?


Puffin 12 Oct 2005, 14:16

That's very interesting, thanks.


Geoffrey 12 Oct 2005, 14:04

My glasses would look about like that girls in the photo.

With the glasses, my CVA (better eye) is about 20/350, without it is impossible to guess. I wear the glasses because that is the only way I have any useful vision at all. Mine are also bifocal so I have some assistance for close as well as distance, although I usually add a magnifier too.

My wife is also legally blind but has a weaker prescription but her CVA is in the 20/500 range.


Puffin 11 Oct 2005, 16:34

Yes, she does look interesting, but I think she must wear the glasses for closeup vision, and any distance vision she gets is just a bonus. The question was more to do with distance CVA, though, and I suppose myopic correction.

I mean, if you're that blind, and you're adverse to glasses generally, surely there's a point where the disadvantages outweigh the small amount of extra vision you get?


 11 Oct 2005, 16:13

Some usable vision is better than none.


lentifan 11 Oct 2005, 15:58

I was asking myself the same question, Puffin, when I saw the absolutely gorgeous girl with the lenticulars in Nietopereks pictures from the blind school.

http://www.tsb.k12tn.net/TSB/photoalbums/Photoalbum%20-%202002-03/Graduation_2003/dsc01485.jpg

http://www.tsb.k12tn.net/TSB/photoalbums/Photoalbum%20-%202002-03/Graduation_2003/moseley%20copy.jpg

http://www.tsb.k12tn.net/TSB/photoalbums/Photoalbum%20-%202002-03/Field_Day_2003/dsc01443.jpg

She presumably has poor vision, but must have some usable vision, otherwise she presumably wouldn't wear the glasses.

Assuming the young man in this picture is her boyfriend and is also blind, I thought it a great shame he can't see how stunning she looks.

http://www.tsb.k12tn.net/TSB/photoalbums/Photoalbum%20-%202002-03/Prom_2003/dsc01022.jpg


Puffin 11 Oct 2005, 02:31

Just a question... if you wore really strong glasses, but could only get really lousy CVA, at what point do you think that you'd give up on the glasses because they're not really doing anything, ie that the acuity with them isn't worth the wearing of them?


woodframes 07 Oct 2005, 21:37

Good day,

I am a maker of hand carved wooden glasses, each being specific in design and construction to the desires of the customer. I personally pick all my woods to ensure uniqueness and quality. If anyone is interested in a one in a kind pair of eyewear, feel free to contact me as we could discuss further the possibilities of custom wooden frames.

Scott Urban

8hhhhhhhh8@gmail.com


 05 Oct 2005, 09:11

Wei -- 1.25 of Astigmatism is mild. Astigmatism is usually caused by the shape of the cornea not being a perfect sphere and is corrected by cylinder in the Rx. It may optically add or subtract slightly to your myopia but it is probably from a different cause. It doesn't take much change in the shape of the cornea to cause astigmatism, approximately 0.4 mm at the cornea will cause 1 diopter refractive error.


morgana 05 Oct 2005, 00:45

can ne one help me. I wear glasses to correct astigmatism and slight myopia and I had my annual check up this morning and while my prescription has not really changed my visual acuity has decreased...i don't understand how this works can someone explain this??


Wei 01 Sep 2005, 11:19

I have question on astigmatesm. I have stigmatesm of 1.25. Is this bad astigmatesm? I understand -16 very very bad myopia but I know little of astigmetesm and wonder how affective this is of rx? Does it add myopia?


Cactus Jack 30 Aug 2005, 21:23

AHA - Depends on the width of the lens and the index of the lens material.

I have misplaced my mm scale. I having to measure in inches and convert to mm. I have some glasses with 5/5D BO. The Sph. Rx of the lens is about -2.00. The lens is about 54 mm wide. Outer edge thickness is approx. 8

mm the inter edge is approx 2 mm. I believe the lens material is CR-39. The power rings are on the outside with none on the inside. I would estimate that the prism increases the outer edge thickness a little less than 1 mm per prism diopter.

A lens can be made with BO and BU prism. It would probably look like a 3D BO lens that had been rotated 45 degrees.

Your eyes easily handle small horizontal BO prism. Vertical prism is a different matter because independent up or down movement of the eyes is unnatural for a human. Some lizards do it handily. Unless you have some vertical muscle imbalance I suggest you stick with BO or BI prism. You might wind up having to tilt your head to fuse vertically displaced images.

C.


AHA 30 Aug 2005, 20:31

Cactus Jack

What will the thickness be on the side

with 1 BO,2BO,3BO.

Is it possible to make a lens like

2BO/2BU,what is the picture?


Cactus Jack 30 Aug 2005, 10:26

AHA - Sorry about the table, it didn't display correctly. I hope you can figure it out

C.


Cactus Jack 30 Aug 2005, 10:24

AHA - 1D BO will result in or correct 0.6 degrees of inward convergence which is not very much. I doubt you will even notice much help with 1D BO. I had to get 5 BO / 5 BO (3 / 3 degrees) before I noticed much help.

I believe that it would be very difficult to damage anything with moderate prism. One thing to remember is that it is absolutely necessary for your eyes to converge (cross) when you look at something up close. I made up this table of approximate total convergence required to fuse images at various distances. Normally, each eye has half the total. The distance is in meters (1 meter = 39.37inches). I hope the table displays properly.

Distance + to focus Prism to Converge

Far 0.00 0

1m +1.00 4

0.5 +2.00 8

0.4 +2.50 10 (normal reading distance)

0.33 +3.00 12

0.25 +4.00 16

If your eyes already have a tendency to over converge (which mine do) you may find that wearing prism is very comfortable. You may also experience something similar to people wanting stronger prescriptions. You may also find that you see double for a time after taking off your glasses.

One tip. Most lens makers will try to keep the outside edge thickness as low as possible which can result in a very thin inter edge. When they mount the lenses the thin edges may distort and introduce Rx errors right where you are looking. Tell the lens maker to keep the inter edge thick enough to not distort in the frame.

Also, lenses with more than 10-12 D of prism are hard to make and fit.

C.


AHA 29 Aug 2005, 23:37

Cactus Jack

I mean 1/2 (half) a D,example you get

1D,2D,3D ect.If i make lenses with

1D BO what would the effect be and

can it damage my eyes very much.

MY RX is then

L: -1.50,-1.00X170 ADD1.75 P: 1D BO

R:-1.50,-1.00X20 ADD 1.75 P;1D BO

I put above in multi focal lenses.

I am from Holland.


Cactus Jack 29 Aug 2005, 21:30

Looking Around - I don't think it is legally bait and switch where they advertise a low price to get you in and then explain that the low price doesn't apply to what you need. I think they are just trying to confuse you to run up the prices. I think their business ethics are weak. I'd suggest you go elsewhere.

Your story reminds me of an old joke where a patient asked what his new lenses were going to cost and the Optician replied: "100 dollars". If the customer didn't flinch, he said: "Each".

C.


Cactus Jack 29 Aug 2005, 21:19

ARZAN - The triangle is probably a symbol for prism diopter. It should also include the orientation of the prism i.e., BI, BO, BU, or BD meaning Base In, Base Out, Base Up, or Base Down.

A very complex prescription might include Sphere Power and Cylinder Power in Diopters; Axis of the Cylinder in degrees; plus Add in Diopters for bi or trifocals, Prism - Base In or Base Out in Prism Diopters; and Prism - Base Up or Base Down in Prism Diopters for each eye.

C.


Cactus Jack 29 Aug 2005, 21:02

AHA - I need to think about your reply a bit. Unfortunately, I didn't quite understand what you meant by .50 Base I+O in both eyes.

0.50 prism diopters is not very much correction, only about 0.3 degrees of angle. And, I don't know how prism can be both In and Out at the same time. Sometimes, small amounts of Base In prism are used with + Add to reduce the amout of convergence and focus effort necessary to read or do close up work.

I'll try to give you a better answer in the next day or so. Hopefully, I will be able to suggest some simple tests that will help you decide what to ask for in your next Rx. Small convergence errors are hard to define without optical tools.

Do you have access to some clear red plastic and a penlight flashlight?

By the way, where do you live?

C.


ARZAN 29 Aug 2005, 20:35

Can somebody explain this prescript to

me: 0.75 with a triangle behind.


Cactus Jack 29 Aug 2005, 20:08

Puffin - I think you are right and my experiences tend to confirm that hypothesis. Of course, it is highly likely that the lab that made these glasses back in 1995 really didn't know what they were doing.

I think there were several factors:

1. Optical center not offset from the measured PD inward to where my eyes were looking.

2. Outside of the lens not mounted forward enough in the frames so my optical axis (9 degrees from straight ahead for 15 diopters) was as near as possible to perpendicular to the lens at the optical center.

3. Variable Vertex Distance across the lens because of 2 above.

Since my original adventures with those glasses, I have had cataract surgery that corrected most of my refractive error and muscle surgery that corrected most of my strabismus - for a while. The strabismus seems to rearing its head again but it is different this time. Before, I had extreme difficulty fusing and maintaining fusion when I was tired (esotropia). Now, when I'm tired, if the images drift apart, I can fuse them easily (esophoria). If I close my eyes for a few moments, I will see double when I open them and have to fuse the images again. I have found that wearing prisms again is very comfortable and keeping images fused with the prisms is effortless. Before, prisms were necessary, now they are optional.

I have ordered some new 15/15 BO glasses, with my current sphere and cyl. Rx, from a US lab that specializes in complex Rxes. Until they arrive I'm using my old 15/15 BO glasses with L:+4.25 and R: +1.50 contacts. I have been very surprised and pleased with the results.

I am very curious to see what the expert lab produces. I told them to not worry about anything but visual acuity.

C.

P.S. I also tried wearing toric CLs with my sphere and cyl. Rx and prism only 12/12 BO glasses. The combination worked very well except the torics wouldn't stay at the correct angle on my cornea. This concept has merit and may be very useful for some people.

Prism only glasses have no optical center (being optically flat). The combination may provide a very wide field of good vision if the contacts correct the sphere and cylinder.


AHA 29 Aug 2005, 20:07

Cactus Jack

1.a Little sometimes,but mainly for a

sharper vision.

2.I am 45.

3.Do not know,a friend have the same

rx like me but with prisms .50 Base I+O

in both lenses,when i try his glasses

it is so sharp and clear and i like

a kind of feeling in my eye.


Looking Around 29 Aug 2005, 15:01

I have 1 1/2 BO in each eye. Site for Sore Eyes charged me $40 extra for this. They said I was lucky it wasn't 3 BO in just one eye. Then they would charge $60.

My Cylinder is 2.25 in the left eye. They charge an extra $10 for each 1/4 over 2.00.

What's this about? I've never had those charges from other vendors.

The whole experience seemed like a bait and switch.


Puffin 29 Aug 2005, 13:03

That's very interesting, I always thought that prisms could interfere with the ordinary correction in a lens - if you could give some idea why this happens, it would help.


Cactus Jack 29 Aug 2005, 09:45

AHA,

A couple of questions:

1. Are you having problems with double vision or just want to wear prisms? (Either one is a valid reason)

2. How old are you?

3. Eyes turned inward (Cross-eyed (Esotropia or Esophoria)) Eyes turned outward (Wall-eyes (exotropia or exophoria))?

Comments based on experience with adult strabismus - esotropia/esophoria (crossed eyes):

1. Less than 5 BO (Base Out) in each eye is barely noticeable. 5 prism diopters is about 3 degrees of correction. I wore 5/5 BO for about 10 years and it really helped me keep images fused when I was tired.

2. The highter you go above 11 or 12 diopters BO, the harder the lenses are to make, mount, and fit correctly so that you can see reasonably clearly.

Even after muscle surgery, I occasionally have to wear 15/15 BO to keep images fused. I also have have to wear low plus contacts to correct the apparent Rx error in the glasses. With the combination, I see very close to 20/20. I had to come up with the CL Rx by trial and error about 7-8 years ago before I even heard of GOC. And had to do it again after cataract surgery - this time with the help of the GOC Excel program and a friendly Optometrist.

3. Making high prism glasses is almost a lost art with modern eye muscle surgery. One-Hour "labs" simply don't have the toos and skills necessary to do more than a few diopters.

4. Avoid Fresnel Sitck-ons. They work fine for the prism but the optical distortion that occurs when they are attached to a lens cannot be corrected by contacts or accomodation. They are intended for temporary use in young children who have serious vision development problems and reading is the least of worries.

Hope this helps.

C.


AHA 29 Aug 2005, 06:42

I am a -1.50,-1.00 add1.75 in both eyes.

I want prisms in both lenses,not to

strong in multi focals.Any recommodations were to start


ehpc 26 Aug 2005, 09:43

Ah....................yes................patience, eh Phil? :)Have fun...............Pete


Phil 26 Aug 2005, 08:47

Clare, I'm back from my hols! Ready for that coffee yet?


Clare 23 Aug 2005, 14:14

Julian - you're right, thank goodness!!


Julian 22 Aug 2005, 12:55

Clare: there are two ways of looking at every question. Vanity, convenience and style will always be the first consideration of some, so there'll always be a good body of people who won't abandon their glasses ::)


Clare 22 Aug 2005, 11:53

Daffy - so pleased to hear your friend is making good progress.

I think there'll always be a good body of people who won't abandon their CLs. Vanity, convenience and style will always be the first consideration of some.


Adam 22 Aug 2005, 02:13

Daffy. I think the days of CL's must be numbered. With spex becoming more of a fashion statement more young people don't mind wearing them and all the old prejudices are going fast. Let's not mind making a spectacle of ourselves!

Andrew. Went to a match on Saturday and was amazed to find around me such a number of glasses wearers - nearly all men and nearly all myopes too. Mostly black, wire narrow spex but a good number of rimless like myself. It certainly gives one a feeling of solidarity. Mind you, in the pub afterwards with my mates, I'd to take off my glasses more than once because they couldn't believe how I could see anything with such thick lenses. My new spex are much commented on these days - what a difference it makes from the old 'four-eyes' and 'goggle-eyes' remarks of the ignorant.


daffy 22 Aug 2005, 00:42

A quick update on my female friend. They ended up treating the eye and won't lose it. However, she swears to never wear contacts again. Somehow, i thought she would think that way. Thanks for the thoughts and prayers!


Andrew 20 Aug 2005, 12:57

Funny you should mention that, Puffin. I went to a football match today, and the half time challenge involved someone trying to kick four footballs in to the goal from various distances to win a car. I think it was only when the first kick only got half way to the goal that I, and most of the others who were watching, realised that he only had one real leg. He received a much louder round of applause for his efforts than normal.


Puffin 19 Aug 2005, 02:02

Its a bit like if you were unfortunate enough only to have one leg, saying that wearing your false leg was harmful.

(I mean, hopping around and falling over isnt?)


Watcher 18 Aug 2005, 17:03

I have just received a copy of a pamphlet called ' Why Eyeglasses Are Harmful For Children And Young People, 1969 by Joseph J. Kennebeck, O.D. I assume it's a joke because it's nothing but a rant against people like me wearing specs. Has anyone else received such rubbish? As someone who really can't see much beyond my nose now without specs it's too late for me and millions of others to try the theories in his book. At one stage he says that it's better to drive without glasses - if I were to do that I'd soon be prosecuted for running over someone! Can all of you myopes combine and let's write to him and tell him that we NEED our specs just to see. I took mine off to read his drivel but had to hold the page an inch from my nose - is that how he wants us all to go through life? What rubbish - he's nothing but a crank. I LOVE my glasses and their strong lenses and nothing is making me give them up!!!!!


 26 Jul 2005, 11:33

would you mind not posting the same thing to multiple threads.

We will read it one just one thread thanks


 26 Jul 2005, 11:27

Can anyone help, I pleased someone just mentioned having an add on there prescription as this is what my question is about I've always really had a thing for glasses and before needing them I used to wear reading glasses but really wanted a pair of minus distance glasses and I guessed I might be able to see out of them anyway when I was 20 I got the courage to go and get an eye test and blagged the doctor and got a pair -0.25 in both eyes I really didn't need them as my eye sight was near on perfect but she thought they would help me with head aches I said I got, anyhow as time went on I wanted to get stronger lens but my dream started coming a bit too true and five years down the line I now really do need glasses, I have to say now I don't want to need them well not this much buy hey its happened, I don't know if I should blame my self for wearing glasses when I didn't need them or computer use maybe a bit of both it may not sound much but I'm up to -1.25 in both eyes and my distance vision is not good at all now and its affecting my life, problem is I don't wear them out as the glasses thing is too much of a fetish I just can do it, Right OK I'm going to get to the point now, I've now got a thing for + glasses but can't really see at a distance through them, I did find some weak ones on line +0.25 which I wear for the computer at home, but what I really want now is distance glasses with a + add I've found a shop on line where you just put in your prescription but don't have to send the real thing, so can anyone suggest a prescription i.e.: -1.25 add + 0.50 I don't have anything else on my normal prescription its just -1.25 in both eyes and nothing else so how much of an add do you think would be ok? bearing in mind I do want to see out of them clearly for close and near, and you never know I might start wearing them to work!


Julian 23 Jul 2005, 01:37

Prayers, of course...


presbyopia_23 23 Jul 2005, 00:42

Oh this is so sad :( cant they do anything? Operate? cornea transplant? Do they even know what type of infection or disease it is? Contacts dont seem as safe as people would like to believe. I have read the risks of them


tortoise 22 Jul 2005, 08:19

Daffy, that sounds horrible, your friend must be terrified! Certainly best wishes and prayers go out to her. Keep us informed as to how she is doing. Also, if you find out anything about what might have caused her infection, (scratched cornea, poor disinfecting habits)

I hope you will let us know. It might help prevent similar problems for someone else.


daffy 21 Jul 2005, 22:01

I didn't know which topic to post this, but this seems the most appropriate.

I discovered last night that one of my female friends was a contact lens wearer. I would have never guessed. But she is in hospital fighting an eye infection from wearing contacts. It looks as though she may lose her right eye as none of the antibiotics are working. I never heard of such thing. I'm shocked. Please pray (for those that are inclined).


Ella 20 Jul 2005, 03:46

Hi Clare

It didn't so much annoy me as make me think, wow, do I really squint so others notice? Especially the MD, as hes mostly locked away in his office or out on business, and I don't often chat to him. He's a lovely guy, and wears glasses himself, not sure what the prescription is because I have no idea how to guess! I do think hes shortsighted, as he'll take his glasses off to read things and seems perfectly OK, but he'll put them back on whenever he looks anywhere else.

It seems pretty strange when a stranger comments though, like your gym incident. They must have been paying pretty close attention to you to notice that :-)

I've had an interesting sighting at work this week. Lots of people seem to wear contacts, including a woman whos about 35 maybe, who commented last week that she hardly ever wears specs (this was when I showed up the first time in glasses). The end of last week and beginning of this week though, she had them on for a few days. She was suffering from a bad cold, and said her eyes hurt too much to put her contacts in. Her glasses were really nice, kind of a deep purple plastic, and suited her face perfectly. I commented that they were lovely, and she said she'd worn them since she was a child and hated them. They were quite thick (again, no idea about prescription) and made her eyes look a bit smaller than mine do, so I'm guessing her prescription is stronger than mine. We seem to be having lots of glasses conversations in the office recently!


Puffin 17 Jul 2005, 15:02

There was a girl at school, she must have been about 11, suddenly she turned up at school wearing glasses full time from nothing. After that the the progression was only to about minus 4 or so. She was a bit a bitch so I never spoke to her more than necessary. She had nice elder sister who wore a similar prescription.


Chris 17 Jul 2005, 11:43

Np, whether or not people go full time with their glasses straight away probably depends on a number of things. For presbyopia full time wear isn't needed, it shouldn't think it's all that uncommon for myopes to go full time straight away, afterall most of them will end up there eventually. I guess it depends on the strenght on the original prescription and/or how much the individual likes/doesn't like the idea of wearing glasses.

I had quite a strong first rx, I'd know I'd needed glasses for quite a while but never got round to going to the opticians, it was only when I couldn't cope with the blur anymore that I eventually got glasses. I was pretty much full time from the start, once I'd got the glasses I always wore them outside the house, for the first few days I didn't always have them on at home, but within a few days I put them on first thing in the morning.

Interestingly, I've got an eyetest booked for Friday, things are starting to look a bit blurry again.


Clare 17 Jul 2005, 06:31

Np - I can't comment on just how typical it is but it probably happens frequently enough. I remember one of my ex boyfriends got glasses at 21 and he went fulltime straight away. I didn't know anything about vision at the time but remember that they weren't too strong. Now, some 15 years later, we still bump into each other and I'd guess his rx is no more than -3, but not much more. Are you thinking you'll go fulltime? What's your rx?


Np 17 Jul 2005, 00:15

Just wondering how typical is it for people to go from not wearing glasses to wearing full time. Any ideas?


presbyopia_23 16 Jul 2005, 03:45

*countinued on 2nd post*

I would be very happy to just reduce my dependancy on glasses. I know ill never be free of glasses because of mild presbyopia.

Oh did I mention when im outside for a while, especially when I go on vacation and I start prespiring my sweat drips on the lenses and greatly distracts me. I wipe it which just causes it to smear. Sometimes I just put my glasses in the pocket and go without them as long as im outdoors in bright sunlight since I see 20/150 then due to tiny pupils which act like pinhole glasses to speak.

I have been working on natural vision improvement. Its quick(or not so quick)easy(if motivated) and cheap(just need some inexpensive guide books) and some say you can eliminate your myopia alltogether. However most people say this is impossible if you have more than -1.5 or -2 but however you can reduce some of it. You could probably reduce your -3 to -1.5 then youd never need glasses again except to drive. I could reduce my -5.5 to -4 or even -3 then be much less dependant on glasses.

http://eyescene.net/cgi-bin/read_thread.cgi?42

There is the topic in this forum in the above link but no one seems to post there.


presbyopia_23 16 Jul 2005, 03:33

The most annoying thing about glasses is the lenses always have some dust on them. I have learned to ignore particles of dust too small to interfer with my vision. Larger particles of dust I try to blow off but this doesnt always work then I end up wiping it with my shirt and this causes it to smear more. The only way to make them completely clean is use a damp papertowel then a dry papertowel to wipe it clean. Dust just gets back on the lenses in no time and clings to it due to static electricty.

http://eyes.bunbury.ws/pages/anti-reflection2.JPG

The lenses reflect and this bothers me. The left has antireflection coating which helps a little but my dad says its a gimmic thatll set you back $50-80 or so and youll still get much of the glare anyway.

There is also the issue of minification. While not a serious problem in my pescription, it nonetheless still is there. Contacts fix this problem, the dust problem and some of the glare but they dry my eyes out and when my eyes are dry I am constantly aware of their presence.

As for lasik I have been thinking about it since I first heard about lasik almost 10 years ago, I was like 14 or so and I was thinking I should get it when I turn 18. I read tons about lasik and became very aware of its risks too. I got an evaluation a few months ago. My pupils can dilate to 8mm, maybe even 9mm. I have mild dry eyes and cant tolerate contacts very well for very long. Finally I have some presbyopia(hence my screename) I say I have about 2.5-3 diopters of accomodation which is still some but less than normal. With my full power -5 glasses on things from less than about 15 inches start becomming blurry. Even from 2 feet my eyes get tired quickly and have a dull ache. I would just need reading glasses after lasik. I mean I could read ok without them(with my contacts in) but its not as clear and makes my eyes tired

so I always read without any correction.

You have it easy being -3 your dependancy on glasses is alot less than mine. You dont need them for eating, reading or using the computer(if you sit a little closer) and you probably dont need them around the house either unless you watch TV. You are probably 20/200, I am 20/600! Youd be able to see the clock when you wake, although a bit blurry. I can barely see mine! You can go to the restroom or eat a snack without taking your glasses with you, I usually take mine with me. You can read from 1/3 meter or 13 inches fine, I have to stick my face in fairly close.


Clare 14 Jul 2005, 12:33

Hi Ella

Did you feel annoyed when your MD made that comment? I had a comment made like that when I was in the gym a couple of months ago and it really hacked me off!!


Ella 14 Jul 2005, 11:23

presbyopia_23,

Why don't you like your glasses? I never had a problem with mine whilst I was at uni, so many people wore them and it just wasn't an issue. Its only since I started work I've become more shy about them. I've come to realise over the past few days just how much I was missing not wearing them for work. Even the computer screen is slightly blurred without them now, which I hadn't really noticed before.

As you said, I can definitely get around without glasses, but its quite difficult, because stuff like not seeing peoples faces, or being able to read notices on the wall, is actually fairly annoying. I'm very glad I've started to wear them now, and the comments have virtually stopped. the only one I got today was from the managing director of our firm, who said, I noticed you've been wearing your specs this week, you certainly look better than when you used to squint across the office. I hadn't even realised I was, but if I don't do it anymore, thats another bonus to wearing them!


presbyopia_23 13 Jul 2005, 22:52

Ella, I also dont like glasses but being -5.25 my uncorrected vision is like 20/600! Your only -3 so you can still see kinda ok to go around without glasses. Your 20/200 I presume, maybe a bit better. Man I wish I was also -3 then id be alot less dependant on glasses


Katy 13 Jul 2005, 10:22

Ella - brilliant! I know that feeling of wanting to whip them off - I actually did that once - my neighbour called me from over the fence and I whipped them off before I looked over! I bet you're glad you've got it over with :-)


Ella 13 Jul 2005, 10:16

Hi

I posted here recently about not feeling I was able to wear my glasses to work. I went to the opticians last week to get my eyes tested and pick some new frames. My prescription only changed a bit, its now -3 and -3.50, and -0.50 astigmatism. The optician was quite suprised when I turned up straight from work not wearing them. he told me he thought I really ought to wear them all the time, he said his prescription was less than mine and he did. After the test I picked out a frame, its brown and plastic and I liked the way it looked on me, although its quite a bold choice I felt! When I picked them up the next day after work, I kept them on all the way home and all that night. I even forced myself to keep them on when a friend came round later, but she is an old university friend and used to seeing me in glasses.

I've worn them for work all week as well! I did as you said and just kept them on. Really wanted to whip them off just as I was walking into the office but then I remembered clear vision, and kept them on. There were actually lots of comments! About 4 or 5 of the girls I work with asked if I didn't have my contacts in, as lots of people seem to wear contacts in my office. My boss actually commented that I looked very studious! Which annoyed me, as I hope they don't make me look like that!

I'm not really worried about anyone else seeing me in them as my friends from university and school, and my family, are used to seeing me in them.

Just realised I've rambled on quite a bit, but I want to say thankyou to everyone who encouraged me to wear them!


T2 12 Jul 2005, 15:04

Taiwanese friends say that theirs is the most myopic population with as many as 85% of students aged 18-26 myopic -6 about average but -14 is common and even higher RX's. We know a young girl from Taiwan who wears -15 glasses and has contact lenses to bring her sight up to where she can see - her total Rx is around an amazing -24/25 but she manages somehow!

Myopia in the Far East has reached epidemic proportions now and there is alarm in governments that blindness is going to affect more people there.


-5.00 who luvs gwgs 09 Jul 2005, 06:18

Not sure whether this is the right thread but I was talking to a Hong Kong optician about percentages with myopia He said about 80% of students in HK have myopia normally -2.00 or -3.00 up from -1.00 or -2.00 20 years ago he also said a very common prescription is -4.00 much more than -5.00 is less common From my sightings I would agree from my recent trip only 1 or 2 girls above about -6.00 (see sightings)


presbyopia_23 30 Jun 2005, 12:05

Katy......astigmistim isnt the same as myopia and does not add onto myopia. -4.5 is -4.5 reguardless of anything else. The two are seperate so he would be a moderate myope and have moderate astigmistim. His uncorrected vision would probably be like 20/600 or so. I dont even consider plus or minus quarter or half diopter as myopia or hyperopia as its so slight, its clinically insignificent.

glinthia, this is puzzling and not good. always being 20/40 best corrected is one thing, being 20/20 when you were young and only 20/40 now calls for investigation. I hope you dont have any eye diseases or ectasia. If not then I would blame your astigmistim. Glasses often can not fully correct this, especially if its the irregular kind. If your BCVA gets worse where you cant legally drive you might consider RGP to try to give you some lines back. Wavefront lasik might be an option but you must talk to your optamologist about this, I am not qualified to give any advice on that, not a doctor. As for me, I have gotten my topographies which showed irregular astigmistim, more so in the right eye. With my full power glasses I only see 20/40 in the right, 20/30 in the left. With both I can kinda make out a few of the 20/25 letters. I consider myself 20/30+ with both eyes open. My optometrist said most people wont get 20/20 vision and your BCVA depends on your shape and what the eye allows. Some only get 20/100 WITH correction, others are very lucky and get 20/15! 20/30 or 20/40 honestly isnt bad and good for everything, even driving! I just hope your BCVA doesnt get worse.

as for you contact wearers, dont let anyone else wear yours, it leds to infection! You may try someones glasses as they never touch your eye directly. I dont usually wear contacts since my eyes too are senestive and contacts dry and irriate them after a couple hours. I wish I didnt need any correction but being in the -5 range this isnt even close to possible. I need 20/600 to positivately see the letter and 20/400 is very difficult. Maybe if I was -2.5 or so and could see 20/200 without too much trouble I might not need glasses-much


Katy 28 Jun 2005, 15:53

I have been reading about the different categories that they put myopia in, which seem to be mild (-0.5 to -3), moderate (-3 to -6) and severe (over -6). The thing is, does anyone know whether they look at the rx with plus or minus cyl for this? A friend of mine has -4.5 with -2 cyl, so written with plus cyl he would have -6.5/+2 - and be counted as severe, which would mean a higher risk for eye problems.

Also, I know there has been a discussion about Singapore on another thread, but does anyone have an idea of how common different minus rxs are in the UK or USA?


John 28 Jun 2005, 07:14

Glinthia -- Have you been to an eye doctor about this problem? What did they say? What seems to be the cause of your declining vision?

I don't think anyone here is likely to have much insight that can help you (though it's possible). But good luck - definitely sounds like a frustrating situation.


 27 Jun 2005, 23:22

Interesting looking equipment used in the eye exam

http://www.caf.dlr.de/me/Institut/Abteilungen/AeromedicalCenter/images/dia.jpg


glinthia 26 Jun 2005, 23:38

I am 23. My acuity is quite bad. about 20/40-20/45 even when I had my best prescription last year.Currently I wear -2.25 2.00 50 left and -1.75 (No Astignmatism) right. My both eyes cannot see any of 20/30 since I was 17 when my prescription was -0.75 for both eyes. I cant see the TV Script clearly only 3 m away from the screen now. When I was 10, I can see them 6-8 m away.

I think my acuity drops slowly and may affect daily life when it drops further. But any method to restore my vision to 20/20?


George1968 26 Jun 2005, 15:12

Ella,

After a couple hours of wearing them at work, nobody will notice. That way, you can save you contacts for special occasions, and still be able to see at work.


Ella 26 Jun 2005, 03:25

Phil,

I mostly wear glasses at weekends, if I am going ou or there is a big occasion I will put my contacts in for a bit, but a 10-hour day with them is just too much.

I might just try the suggestions of getting a new pair, I could do with my eyes testing anyway as its been a couple of years. I would quite like to try those plastic frames, but then they might look quite bold and as I'm trying to hide them, maybe not a good idea!

thanks so much for being so encouraging, its really helped me to see that maybe people won't notice that much if I start wearing them to work.


irishgal 24 Jun 2005, 10:59

Ella, I know how you feel, I was like that when I first started college. In school it was ok as people were used to seeing me in glasses... but at college I wore contacts each day for the first few weeks so the first time I wore my glasses it was a little daunting... but in the end it was ok. I did have a few comments, but I just explained I usually wore contacts, and no more was said... though some people did want to try them on, which lead to a few comments regarding their strenth which made me feel a little embarassed. (I'm -6.5, -7.25). But after a short while people didnt say anything. You said you'd worn yours once for a presentation, so I'm sure people noticed them then, so my guess is that people are expecting to see you wearing them again soon, so perhaps they wont say too much!! I've rambled a bit here but I guess what I'm trying to say is to just to go for it, it wont be as bad as you think!


Alan 24 Jun 2005, 09:50

Ella,

In my experience, the only trick is to force full-time wear for a couple weeks or more. At some point during this time, you'll most likely start to 'feel' like wearing glasses isn't such a big deal. Until you wear them full time, though, it's easy to stay embarrassed about them for years, even decades...even though it doesn't take long to get over it.

Katy's recommendation is a good one: go shopping for a pair of glasses that you really like. Be patient, go to as many shops as it takes. You'll find a pair that make you look just as good or better than you do without glasses.

Some other things that can be encouraging: *Work is the perfect place to wear glasses. Most people inherently think glasses-wearers are smarter. It's a good way for a young woman to get a little extra respect. *There's nothing odd about showing up in glasses all of a sudden; just say your contacts were being uncomfortable...it's true, and it happens to almost every contact lens wearer at some point, and the majority of young professionals are nearsighted.


Katy 24 Jun 2005, 04:05

Ella - I know how you feel, I used to be exactly the same. I felt like once I had met someone without my glasses, it was too late. But the thing is, it really isn't that bad when you actually do it - thinking about it is much worse. If you wear them to work, you will probably get a couple of comments in the first ten minutes, and that will be it. You will probably feel shy for the first day, but not after that - and it is really worth one day of shyness to be able to wear them and see! Nobody really takes much notice, which is hard to believe, when wearing them feels like such a huge thing.

What really helped me was getting some new frames before I started wearing them - I got some I liked and that made me feel more confident. And whenever anyone said anything, which wasn't very often, I just said I had had them for ages, and no-one asked anything else.


Phil 24 Jun 2005, 01:03

Ella, I'm more than twice your age and have felt like you do since university days! For me it has hardly got easier. I'm still too embarrassed to wear at work except when absolutely essential (only a couple of times in more than 20 years!), though I do wear a bit more outside at weekends now. And, of course, I have to wear when driving or at the cinema or theatre. Some people seem to overcome their shyness; others don't. I don't think I ever will. Amd maybe it's worse for me as I've never had contacts: don't think I could cope with them. Good luck.


-5.00 who luvs gwgs 23 Jun 2005, 15:42

I have read several posts about frequency of wearing glasses .Although I have been very keen on gwgs since I was first interested in girls I have always been shy about my own glasses at least until I was in my 30s .My first prescription at 8 was about -0.5 right and -1.00 left for school and TV this progressed to -1.50 right -3.00 with mild astigmatism by 16 no optician has ever told me to go fulltime .I have graduallyworn them more and more until I wore them fulltime by the time I was about -3.00 right and about -4.00 left. yes it was a struggle and for years I really missed out .Interestingly I have had very very few comments over the years apart from wives and girlfriends all who have been myopic girls the highest being a 1980s girl who proudly wore -15.00s and never wore contacts however as is so often the case I was rather keener on her than she on me! I now have a lovely gf mentioned in previous posts who is -6.50 in her worst eye she is about to get her first bifocals so will doubtlessly look even sexier.Yes she has proudly worn her glasses fulltime since she first had them at age 11 no contacts for thank goodness.So I would say to everybody go for fulltime wear if you are anything over about -2.00 hardly any one apart from ES members will notice.


George1968 23 Jun 2005, 11:58

Ella,

When you are not wearing contacts outside of work, what do you do? Do you wear your glasses, or do got without?


Ella 23 Jun 2005, 11:27

Hi Clare and Phil

I am in a similar situation to te two of you. My prescription is -2.75 and -3 and about -0.50 of astigmatism.

I'm in my first job since university, and for the interview, I wore my contacts, which I can only wear for a few hours at a time (my eyes are sensitive). After meeting everyone there with no glasses, I know it sounds stupid, but I couldn't bring myself to wear them. So now I don't wear them to work, and often have to squint to even try to make things out. The only time I have ever worn them at work is for a presentation, when I absolutely could not see a thing written on the wall!

I have no idea how to introduce them, as I am very shy and would find peoples comments embarrassing, especially since I don't think they suit me that much.


Phil 22 Jun 2005, 01:35

Hi Clare, Remember at -3.25 and -3.5 I'm not that much more shortsighted than you. And your rx is still on the increase: mine actually dropped by .25 last time but one. I find that I do best if I haven't worn glasses for a while so, as you use contacts, you might find things blurrier (is there such a word?) than me when you wear neither glasses nor contacts. We just must meet: we've got such a common interest. We can have a contest as to which of us can see least across that coffee-shop. Bet it would be a close run thing. Text me-07871436620.


Clare 21 Jun 2005, 13:07

Hi Phil

You said "If your rx goes up a bit you may just have to wear them a little more". Hey, I don't see you setting the great example there! What does 'a little more' mean in terms of the difference between my 'now' and that?

Sorry, I'm teasing you big time. I am curious how you get by though - when I'm tired I dread putting contacts in, this morning the sun was shining, I wore my sunglasses and am used to having some spare contacts in my drawer at work. But work is new, I haven't left any contacts in my drawer! Result - I've struggled with recognising people as they approach me, acted dumb when someone gesticulated across the office for something, and sat in a presentation that I couldn't see. How do you do it? !!


Clare 21 Jun 2005, 13:03

Einar - that's such a sad story. I hoped for a different result!


Einar 21 Jun 2005, 06:01

Hi Clare and Phil,

(sorry, my english is bad)

... a date ... many years ago ...

I (22 and very shy) met a girl (21 and also shy).

She never wore her glasses ( -3.5 or so) and so did I (-4.25, -4.5).

We knew our problem and we were sure to talk about and to wear our glasses.

My glasses were in my jacket. I felt them.

Her glasses were ... I dont know.

Oh, what a craving for outing.

(...)

We talked about the wheather, her home-town, our parents ...

I was to shy.

She was to shy.

Bye-bye. Lets meet again. Next week or so. Okay? Fine.

We never met again.

Greetings,

Einar


Phil 21 Jun 2005, 01:48

Clare, I'm still shy, even at weekends! As you say it never really goes away. But supermarkets etc. were getting dodgy! And as I have to wear them driving there I have started keeping them on sometimes. So I'm no braver than you. If your rx goes up a bit you may just have to wear them a little more. Luckily mine seems to have stabilised. I don't think I'll ever go fulltime. I think you are wrong about how we'd be if we met: each would know the other's thoughts and we'd just giggle. If you are ever in SW1 I'll buy you a coffee and we'll find out!


George1968 20 Jun 2005, 16:45

Clare,

I don't think myopia just goes away. Yours started later than most, but I am sure that it either stabilizes or gets worse, not get better.


 20 Jun 2005, 14:50

Phil

ps - just noticed you said - "though I do now wear them at weekends and out of work .."

Given my previous comment, is this regularity only recent?


Clare 20 Jun 2005, 14:47

Isn't it strange? I never craved glasses, in fact I'd never thought about them and any friends who got them had no impact on me. Yours was a fair prescription wasn't it for a first one? Mine was -0.75 and I really questioned why it'd even been prescribed. Perhaps if I'd ignored it, it would have gone away, or at least stayed the same. But there's no point in that train of thought now.

I still think you're 'brave' enough (if that's the right term) to wear glasses outside of work, so that's a start. I'm sure at -3.5 you must sometimes wish you could just put them on!! And if two people like us met? I think the one like me would still be reticent, maybe forever like it ...


Phil 20 Jun 2005, 01:00

I can't explain any of it Clare. It's deep in my past. I can remember wanting glasses when I was 9 or 10, and trying to get them when I was 18 (and failing because my rx was "too low" and the optician wanted his lunch!). Then being so pleased three years later when I had progressed to -2 while at Oxford: the optician there was astounded I wasn't already wearing fulltime! Told me I must. I put my first pair on in his shop, then took them off as soon as I got outside! And there the shyness began: none of my college friends knew I needed glasses: most of them still don't! What do you think would happen if two people with "our" problem knew they were going to meet? My suspicion is that they would both wear their glasses for the encounter and not feel a spot of shyness.


presbyopia_23 19 Jun 2005, 07:56

"presbyopia-Did your brother wear his glasses for the eye test in Florida? I guess in Florida the vision requirement is lower because of all the elderly."

to my knowlege no and he doesnt have a restriction on his license either. You bring a good point and im thankful for the 20/70 requirement. I think 20/40 is too strict and not neccessary. Sure you might not be able to see street signs from like a mile away you 20/20 guys enjoy but 20/70 doesnt make you an unsafe driver. Many people either dont drive or drive illegally because their uncorrected or best corrected vision is worse than 20/40. One lady who had bad results in lasik only achieved 20/60 uncorrected and glasses couldnt help past that. Her uncorrected vision improved tremendously but she lost a couple lines best corrected. I dont know what will happen when the time comes to renew her license :( anyway my bro is -1.5 and -2.0 so hes 20/60 and 20/80 in his eyes.

"Presbyopia_23 - I have -2.75 contacts and -2.75 glasses. They both work fine for me ;)"

Then you are overcorrected almost 3/4 diopters with your contacts and have enough accomodation to cover that. If you can even read with your contacts in without alot of blurriness or difficulity then you can accomodate better than this 23 year old presbyope. I can accomodate 2.75 diopters which is like half as much as what other 23 year olds can do. I take my glasses off to read or read from half a meter with glasses on(which I probably shouldnt, thats 2+ diopters accomodation and bad for my eyes) so I make it a practice to never read or eat with my glasses and I use weaker computer glasses thats supposed to undercorrect me by 1.5. I cant get lasik or id need reading glasses for anything less than a meter :(


Clare 17 Jun 2005, 14:42

Phil, you and I share something in common eh? Funny though that you're prepared to wear them out of work and at weekends, that proves that you're not that shy about them. Whereas I, and admittedly my rx is lower than yours, prefer to go without if I can. I challenge you to define why that work audience is more difficult than any of your outside work acquaintances - an I only challenge you because I know we both have issues here, not because I disagree with you!!


newcomer 17 Jun 2005, 13:16

I was just wondering guys, at what strencth may some one start to notice / wear glasses for astigmatism on its own.

Also what does -.75 astigmatism equate to in terms of myopia????


Phil 17 Jun 2005, 01:34

Clare, I am tempted, but my shyness always wins through at work, though I do now wear them at weekends and out of work otherwise than when I have to (eg for driving). It's so odd because I love girls wearing a rx around mine. Yet I'm too shy to wear myself. I'm generally very straightforward and "normal", in an ultra-"conventional" job. But I'm a real oddball when it comes to glasses!.


Clare 16 Jun 2005, 11:22

Phil I think that's an amazing record - wearing them so little i mean when your rx is something that most here would consider way beyond part time wear. Aren't you ever tempted despite your shyness?


Phil 16 Jun 2005, 00:31

Clare - I've been in the same very specialised job, drafting legislation, for over 20 years and hardly anyone in the office has seen me in my specs (-3.5 ish). One girl, who had worked as my assistant for a whole year without seeing me in them, caught me with them on at a conference: I was forced to put them on to read the Power Point demonstration. She kept on and on asking me about them. I got so shy. Weird isn't it?


George1968 15 Jun 2005, 16:47

Clare,

It has been a year since my last eye test. Don't you go for an eye test once per year?

Hey, if there's an increase, there's an increase. I'm sure it wouldn't be much or I would notice. I'm wearing glasses all the time, so what's the difference if the glasses are a bit stronger?

Given my wife and I are splitting up, I am hoping that girls make passes at boys who wear glasses.


Clare 15 Jun 2005, 14:25

George, I'm at my new job but no-one's yet seen me in glasses. But it's early days yet, I'm just a few weeks in.

And, how quickly a year goes eh? I guess you're entirely comfortable with your new look now and I'm sure those rimless specs suit you just fine. Why the eye test so soon, I mean after just a year? Anyway good luck and you may even get an increase now you've let your guard down, stranger things happen don't we know it! Keep in touch won't you?


George1968 15 Jun 2005, 08:57

Clare,

Yes, things are fine. Can't believe that it's been a year since I went to fulltime glasses wearing. I am so used to it now I can't believe I fought wearing glasses for such a long time.

I have an eyetest next week. I don't expect any substantial changes.

Are you still at your same job?


Clare 15 Jun 2005, 08:15

Hi George 1968, I'd say "all the time" ... but that wouldn't strictly be true!! All well with you?


George1968 15 Jun 2005, 06:19

Hey Clare,

Nice to see you back. Still bare-eyed on the weekends?


Clare 15 Jun 2005, 05:58

Presbyopia_23 - I have -2.75 contacts and -2.75 glasses. They both work fine for me ;)


Brian-16 15 Jun 2005, 05:18

presbyopia-Did your brother wear his glasses for the eye test in Florida? I guess in Florida the vision requirement is lower because of all the elderly.


presbyopia_23 15 Jun 2005, 03:59

I calculate contacts vs. glasses by taking the contact pescription and multiplying by 1.25 to get glasses or multiply by .8 to get contacts. Therefore -1 contacts equals -1.25 glasses, -2 equals -2.5 glasses, etc. I have tested this myself and my simple formula agrees with me. I have a few contact prescriptions I got as samples ;) and my optomologist measured my glasses pescription as -5 well I see just as well with the -4 multifocal contacts I tried. The -3.5s I tried are slightly clearer than my old -4 glasses. The results I ask of others also seem consistant, one lady sees better with her -3 contacts than -3 glasses, I told her she needs -3.75 glasses. My sister wears -2.75 contacts and can barely see the 20/200 E uncorrected. This is about -3.5 in glasses.

As for lasik on someone -.5 or even -1 thats just dumb. You are taking a risk on your eyes with such low myopia that wont even limit you! I think lasik or any surgury on someone who can legally drive without correction is a big NO-NO! This generally covers anyone less than -1 to -1.5 diopters. I would be hesisant to even mention lasik if you are not over -2 diopters. My brother is -1.5 and -2 for 20/60 and 20/80 but his myopia is quite low that he doesnt really bother with glasses except for driving(not that he even needs glasses to drive, just good measure) Over here in Florida you gotta be 20/70 to legally drive.

Lasik doctors and centers just want your $ so yes ive seen some -1 get lasered and frankly any complications they get is their own fault for being so vain about a very, very slight blur. I really think lasik should be reserved for those with over -3 diopters and/or moderate astigmistim. Get intacs if you are -3.5 or less, at least those can be removed for any reason


Luke 02 Jun 2005, 07:36

I think the phrase would have been "obviously more dollars than sense". ;)

Anyway, in the lasik-ed person's defense, low prescriptions usually yield very good results. If the person wasn't very old, they could have a long period of very good uncorrected vision instead of sort of mediocre uncorrected vision; I don't really think Lasik was any less indicated in this situation than for a person with -3 or -5.

"In-tacs" corneal rings were supposed to be aimed at people in this Rx range, and would have been a better solution, I think - since they can be removed and provide excellent results for people with low Rx's. I think the company that makes them went out of business, though, since I think Lasik has a lot more marketing money and momentum behind it.

Anyway, too bad for the goal of having more people wear glasses. But they'll be wearing readers at some point.


 02 Jun 2005, 02:48

Specs4ever - durely with -0.5 and -1.00 this person could not legally drive? Not in the UK anyway?


 02 Jun 2005, 02:47

Obvisouly more money then sense!! lol -


specs4ever 01 Jun 2005, 16:59

Wow, this person should win the dumbest person on earth award. With such a slight prescription, in one eye their v/a would have been around 20/30, and the other about 20/40. They would not even have had their licence restricted for driving. Now, within a few years they will likely become farsighted - possibly quite farsighted. Why take such awful chances with your eyesight for such a minimal amount of improvement. But, I suppose that the laser surgeon would cheerfully have accepted their money. All this of course is IMHO.


 01 Jun 2005, 15:30

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=31415&item=5585459721&rd=1

Do surgeries really provide lasik for low prescriptions like this? I always thought there had to be a certain threshold reached before they would recommend surgery? Anyone know if there are and, if so, what these requirements and limits are - i.e. lowest prescription to highest prescription!?


myofan 01 Jun 2005, 10:46

That calculator is interesting. The link doesn't work unless you leave off the period (.) at the end:

http://www.eyedock.com/calcs/cl_calcs.php


JJ 31 May 2005, 22:00

http://www.eyedock.com/calcs/cl_calcs.php. Contact lenses and eyeglass rx is the same until you reach -3.50.


 31 May 2005, 09:07

Presbyopia_23 how does .5 contact equate to .63 glasses? Is there some formula to work this out? I have heard that contacts are a bit weaker usually then glasses because they are that much closer to the eye but I thought this was generally only with highre prescriptions? For example with -1.5 glasses is it generally accepted that -1.25 contact will be suitable? Does the hight the prescription mean the greater difference between glasses strength and lense strangth?


presbyopia_23 31 May 2005, 00:49

Puffin, someone whos 20/40 might not even know hes slightly myopic unless he compares his vision with someone else using a chart or a game of "who can see the furthest" Sometimes they complain they cant see the chalkboard from the back of class and ask to get closer. He may think everyone sees as good/bad as he does. My first pescription was -1 and I didnt relize this till I made my own vision chart with a pencil for fun. I remember doing this as bragging rights how good my vision was and I said I could see halfway down the bottom and told my bro if he can see as far down as he. To my supprise he saw two lines lower than me. I asked how is that possible? He said he really focused on the letters and squinted a bit. I was like ah I didnt put the effort you did. I guess things led themselves and my dad thought I might be a "little off" I was like no way but dad said he can see twice as far with his glasses as I could uncorrected(I was tested as 20/50) and got my -1 pair and ever since my vision slowly got worse. I probably overwore my glasses, if not id be alot less than the -5.5(improved to -4.75) I am now.

as for that ebay auction, ebay musta pulled it. I guess thats something your not allowed to sell(no pescription, wasnt a optometrist)

"-0.5 cls correspond to -0.75, which isn't negligable if you're driving or trying to read the subtitles on a film - it means that everything past eight feet or so is a mild blur."

-.5 contacts are equal to .63 glasses(but none are made like that just by .25s) but this is still a very mild myope. Probably 20/30 without astigmistim. Youd gain at least a line, possibily two if you dont have other problems besides simple myopia. Driving is not an excuse, 49 states give you an unrestricted license for 20/40 with many allowing 20/50 or even worse to drive. Only one state is very strict-20/30! I dont think being 20/30 would impair you unless you wanted to be a pilot or an occupation that requires 20/20 I honestly wouldnt bother with contacts or glasses if I was 20/40 or better. In fact doing so would just make your eyes worse like it did for me and most.

I have seen plano contacts, but those type are bifocal, multifocal or to change the color of your eye. Ive seen quarter diopter(both plus and minus) pescription contacts which is just silly in my opinion. For low hyperopes they can see just fine from far(nonwithstanding presbyopia) and young hyperopes, if mild can accomodate enough to see from near too. Low myopes also shouldnt bother with correction, if they do, just to drive or something


guest 30 May 2005, 17:54

I wear glasses and actually wear them more often than not. I have an add now and with the need for both distance and near correction, it is usually easier just to wear my glasses most of the time. I have never even thought about contacts.


 30 May 2005, 16:02

Guest - do you wear -0.75 lenses - or just stick with glasses? I didn't mean to offend anyone when I stated that people with weak prescriptions dont NEED contacts - just that I usually associate wearing contact lenses with full time wear and I am surprised that people wear fulltime with such prescriptions.

But of course it is up to anyone to wear lenses at any prescription - I suppose at the end of the day if these companies sell such items they must be in demand! An I guess that even with low prescriptions why tolerate blue when there are ways of helping it!

Anybody else out there who wear low prescription lenses?


guest 30 May 2005, 12:31

I have a distance correction of only -.75 - but I wear for driving moviewatching tv etc.....the blur is noticable and bothersome to me.


 29 May 2005, 02:32

Laura - what dya mean 0.50 correspondendes to 0.75? do you mean 0.75cyl?


what about astigmatism 28 May 2005, 15:24

might that mild rx in contact lenses also neutralise some mild astigmatism?


laura 28 May 2005, 14:35

-0.5 cls correspond to -0.75, which isn't negligable if you're driving or trying to read the subtitles on a film - it means that everything past eight feet or so is a mild blur.


 28 May 2005, 11:21

continued... I think its suppose to read 0.50 - indeed 0.05 would be a truly neglible prescription!! even so 0.5 is pretty weak!!!

On another note any one ever thought about starting up a threads dedicated to contact lenses?!


 28 May 2005, 11:18

A long time ago someone mentioned something about seeing some really weak contact lenses for sale and asking whether poeple really bother with them with such weak prescriptions - well obviously some people do!! See link!!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=75084&item=5585483770&rd=1

Cant understand my self why people would bother with the expense and effort with such negligible prescriptions!! but I guess everybody is different and everyone has different tolerance levels?!!


Puffin 28 May 2005, 02:53

Yes, but if you'd never worn glasses and perhaps neglected to go to the optician for a while - you might not know what 20/40 is or what sort of vision it represents.


presbyopia_23 27 May 2005, 23:04

People generally start wearing glasses when their uncorrected vision is 20/40 or worse. This is about -1 diopters for their first pair. However many low myopes only wear glasses part time


Clare 27 May 2005, 14:53

Puffin - I think it's very possible. When I was -1.25 I barely needed my glasses but recognised that, legally, I had to wear them for driving. What would that equate to I wonder, would it be as much as 20/50?


Puffin 27 May 2005, 06:54

I wonder how common it for slightly myopic people to tolerate/ignore less than 20/20 vision without even thinking about glasses?


Daffy 26 May 2005, 19:24

I agree. The term 'computer glasses' is really a 'cop out' to say that you need reading glasses. Sure it will assist in vision for computer use. But they will also have them on while working around the PC. Before long, they will realize that it's just easier to read with them on and end up needing them for any close work. It just takes time.


leelee 14 May 2005, 15:06

Hi Clare

Actually - you friend is actually likely longsighted (or she has some astigmatism, or both) - she just isn't very presbyopic - yet -

Computers seem to pose a particular burden in that one tends to stare at this one brightly lit plane for many hours a day resulting in this dull stinging sensation for many of us. If you dont have too much cylindar in your prescription, you can get an idea of what its like by wearing your glasses over your contacts and then working on the computer all day - everyday. But chances are - things in the distance will be pretty sharp (untill you work on the computer for a while, and then it might take a few minutes (or more) to get your distance vision clear again.


Clare 14 May 2005, 14:24

A good friend of mine just got 'computer glasses'. Can someone explain what they do? She doesn't appear to be getting longsighted - she's 37.

Incidentally, I smile about this. She's my bestest friend but she hasn't the faintest idea what it's like not to have 20/20 vision. In the past it's made her unwittingly quite insensitive, with comments like "can't you see that ..." (incredulous), but that's just because she can and doesn't understand that it's usual that some people can't. That's why I'm curious about what the need for computer glasses actually means.

You know, I'm blessed - I have two great friends: one who doesn't understand what it's like to be myopic and the other who does and can't understand who someone who is myopic will tolerate anything less than 20/20 vision. What a brilliant paradox.


Sporty 14 May 2005, 06:21

Was on the paralympic website earlier and it said that class s13 (visually impaired swimmers) need visual acuity of more than 2/60 but less then 6/60 - what does this roughly equate to in terms of diopters? I never think some competitors on the telly are 'THAT' blind, as they seem to be able to navigate around the stadium or pool etc - will little or no assistance - also does anybody know if common conditions such as myopia will enable a competitor to be classified as a paralympian or does it mean that this visual acuity needs to be this bad WITH correction? Any feedback much appreciated!!


John S 13 May 2005, 12:41

How about a spelling class? That might be in order.


bloody_jojo 13 May 2005, 07:54

i am a teen of longveiw/kelso washington and would like to open a teencenter to help teens and give them something to do after school and on the weakends to keep them out of trouble and their grades up! if you would like to send me ur signature on this please do! bloody_jojo_05@yahoo.com

thaink you for your time

Bloody_jojo


myhopeinhere 12 May 2005, 13:19

I attended an interview a few years ago for Police selection and scraped by with my then -3,think that was the top limit then in the UK,might have changed now as they are having trouble getting recruits


Clare 12 May 2005, 12:10

Another guest - I don't know the actual answer but as there are lots of bespectacled policemen wandering around I imagine it's less of an issue than it used to be. I think they changed their entry requirements on height a few years back so why not this one too? As to what happens if your vision deteriorates, I'd imagine they'd move you to a desk job. That's kind of standard practice I think in jobs in our institutions like the forces I think. I've been out with a couple of policemen and it's very similar in outlook.


 10 May 2005, 06:26

also - does anybody know what the consequence is if, on entering the police force or fire brigade, you have perfect 20/20 vision and then your eyesight deteriorates? Do you get kicked out of the force?!!!! Lol - surely this deteriotation in eyesight is relatively common?!


Another Guest! 10 May 2005, 06:21

I was just, as a matter of interest, looking up the police recruitment homepage and looking at what visual acuity is required. It says that uncorrected vision should be no more then 6/36 - what does this equate to in diopters? and is this correct? This doesnt seem to be very high to me and I guess about half the population have vision like this or worse - besides i am sure i know of police officers and have seen police officers with much higher prescriptions then this. I am around the -2 mark so, if I was interested in applying, would 6/36 unaided vision be unattainable?


JP 08 May 2005, 13:17

-10 sph, -5cyl x 1 is close to a prescription of 12,50 sph. Its not the same vision because -5 cyl is strong.


Brian-16 07 May 2005, 17:59

Julian

I agree about the -15 glasses rx.I recently visited a college for preparation this coming fall,and one of the other students had around -15 and I could actually see a little better with my rx which is 3.5 or so less.He said he had 20/30 overall vision and squinted a lot to see things.I am going to see more of him and encourage him to get bi-focals now,not later..I was thrilled about actually being able to see better than someone else with specs!!


Julian 07 May 2005, 10:30

It isn't the 1 degree that will make a difference, but the fact that 5 dioptres of the Rx are cylinder and not sphere. I"d say his vision will be as bad as someone's with -15, but he won't see well with -15 glasses.


Guest 07 May 2005, 08:26

I probably should have posted here first:

A friend asked if a prescription of:

-10sph, -5cyl x 1 is close to a prescription of -15sph, or will he notice the 1 degree much?


Brian-16 30 Apr 2005, 10:24

pete

I also got 20/30 ...


pete 30 Apr 2005, 09:40

check this out:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=question126.htm&url=http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/oph/ped/IVAC/IVAC.html

i got 20/30!


Caroline 30 Apr 2005, 01:04

eating was another area I noticed my need for glasses for close work too, especially balancing my plate on my chest watching the TV (I have tri focals). Although not essential for eating, it is much more comfortable if whatever you are looking at is in focus. I hate not to be able to see clearly. I even wear my glasses in the bath until I wash my hair and face!


-- 29 Apr 2005, 10:31

my brother in law announced recently that he now needs his reading glasses to eat!


Matthew 29 Apr 2005, 09:18

Guest -- It depends. Someone who is completely blind could carry on a conversation across a table. Someone with, say, -6 wouldn't be able to see you clearly at all across a table, but could probably look at you as if he were making eye contact. "Comfort" is totally dependent on the person - some people can't stand the slightest blur (which, at 4 feet away probably happens between -1.5 and -2) while others wouldn't mind conversing in a fog of -20. But I think between -3 and -5, someone across a table is really quite blurry; might be fine with a friend, but probably awkward with someone you don't really know well.


Guest 27 Apr 2005, 14:34

A friend of mine is 45, now takes his glasses off to read but can comfortably converse across a table without glasses. Prescription is more than my minus 3 although I can't determine how much. Any guesses? If you think it's a stupid question I just wondered if there were any guidelines, like "no one of minus 4 would be able to see across a table to hold a conversation ..." etc. Thanks.


Bob W. 26 Apr 2005, 20:49

Meant to hit Tab! BTW, this is the link to the BBC article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4437067.stm

Enough from me for awhile!


Bob W. 26 Apr 2005, 20:47


Bob W. 26 Apr 2005, 20:47

Hi all!

I don't know if anyone noticed in BBC online 4/12, Smart lenses to halt short sight, an article describes a study at Anglia Polytechnic University, Cambridge.

Apparently, they're taking in myopes from 14 to 21 years old, fitting them with these lenses, and then watching to see what happens over the next 3 years or so. They will track progression of their Rx. I got curious (SUrprise!!) and I think they are fitting progressive or bifocal contact lenses, or just regular single vision Rx, so see if "readers" slow up the progression any. This is based of studies that myopes have some difficulty accomodating compared to others, although this only shows up when they first become clinically myopic. A couple of recent studies seem to show that bifocals help slow progression.

If anyone is curious about the current state of research in Myopia world, consider this link:

http://web.apu.ac.uk/appsci/optometry/myopiaconference/10th%20IMC%20abstract%20book.pdf

This is the abridged proceedings of the 10th International Myopia Conference in Cambridge. It contains very short abstracts of many research papers, and is not casual reading. Just glancing through it though, will give you an idea of where things are headed. If certain animal species have vision hampered in early developement, their eyes grow too long. Acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter, is believed to be part of this. 1 line of research lead to using Atropine (Acetylcholine Blocker), or something similar, as drops multiple times per day, with some slowing of Rx progression. Another line is that accomodation difficulties might drive Rx progression, therefore, try to assist with bifocals. 2 controlled studies showed that undercorrecting children by 0.75 Diopters led to increased Rx progression to the point that the studies were ended in 2 years instead of 3. In all of these studies, the length of the eye, behind the lens, called the 'posterior chamber' elongates in proportion to the change in Rx.

I wonder where this leaves bare-eyed wanderers? That could leave those like me in a real jam! The only way out that I can think of is considering straining, ie., the amount of effort made in trying to focus. Maybe strained attempts at focusing are more malignant than relaxed blur? This is the APU blurb about the study:

http://web.apu.ac.uk/appsci/optometry/pressrelease.htm

Cheers, or whatever.

Best Regards, Bob W.


Ted 23 Mar 2005, 07:32

have her read this http://www.optiboard.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-4734.html post #1881


still 22 Mar 2005, 20:43

Hasan, let her wear them as she wants. I think you'll see that soon she will be used to them and to people's reaction to the novelty. Then she'll probably prefer to wear full-time, and you won't have to argue about it.


Hasan 22 Mar 2005, 17:37

It finnaly happend! My wife got her glasses! It`s -1.75 right eye and -2.25 left eye. The only problem that she still don`t want to wear it all the time. How can I convince her to become fulltime wearer?


Mike 17 Mar 2005, 06:41

I suppose that near-sightedness is simply an unavoidable consequence of working in this industry. You can take precautions to minimize eyestrain, like using a good LCD monitor and taking frequent breaks, but ultimately, if you are sitting in front of a computer all day, you're probably going to become near-sighted sooner or later.

Truthfully, I probably should have gotten an eye exam two or three years ago, but simply kept putting it off.

Anyways, the moment I put on the glasses, the difference was startling. You really don't appreciate all of the crisp, subtle details of the world around you that you are not seeing, until you finally make the comparison.


leelee 02 Mar 2005, 15:45

A few years ago (ok, maybe a decade ago) I could see well at distance thru most weak to moderate minus lenses - up to maybe about -3 or -4, even up to -7 if I tried for a while (tho it was a real strain, and the minimisation was very apparent.

Now that age has made me respect my piddling hyperopia & mild astigmatism, even -1 is apparent to me, and quite impossible for near!


Horsey 02 Mar 2005, 15:05

Thanks for your views Andrew - I am now a -2.50 and usually where contacts but have tried my glasses on over my contacts - do you think this vision is what somebody with 20/20 vision would see through my glasses? I guess again, it is up to the person trying them on?!!


Andrew 02 Mar 2005, 14:45

Horsey,

I'm not sure there's an accurate answer to your question - it depends on the person trying the glasses on. Some people will declare even the mildest prescription "far too strong", in the same way as some people will say they are "blind" without their glasses, which are a -1 prescription. Then you need to add in the fact that the "trier-on" may need a mild prescription themselves, which will produce different results.

Not a helpful answer, maybe, but accurate, I hope.


Horsey 02 Mar 2005, 13:38

What RX do you think it takes for a plano to begin not to see clearly through? When I started off with glasses they were something like -0.75 and when friends etc tried them on they said 'there's no difference - are these clear glass? - since then my prescription has increased my firneds now say they cant see anything through them - but I'm interested to know when this clear image turns into a blur?!!


Jarred 27 Feb 2005, 09:48

Hi Matt, Thanks for your observations on the side vision with the varifocals, its interesting. I was wondering if mine had a flaw in them but it sounds like its the norm. My need for the multifocal is to control acomodative esotropia, I've been wearing either reading glasses or bifocals since I was about ten. I think my preference is for the quality if vision over what the glasses look like to anyone else, with the prism in my prescription my lenses are about 10mm thick at the edges so who am I kidding! But its interesting to hear your observations.

J


mattp 27 Feb 2005, 09:23

Jarred--

Your description of looking at the computer screen through the progressives is exactly what I experience--to see the edges of the screen clearly, I must turn my head slightly. Driving is also somewhat problematic--things in the outside rear view mirrors are blurred as are instruments like radio controls in the center of the dashboard. I've not had a problem with things to the sides of the car, though--I guess I've probably always turned my head rather than looking out the sides of my glasses.

Again, I do think the trifocals do give me better vision. Having just turned fifty, vanity is my motivation here. I have gotten used to the progressives, and there are no lines!!

Matt


-14 27 Feb 2005, 09:10

Jarred

I have HOYA progressives and I love them. I have a +3 add with 2BO prisms. Not all progressives are equal with some being better than others. With my RX (-14) peripheral vision has always been iffy but the Hoyas seem to be as good as my older single vision lenses.


Jarred 27 Feb 2005, 07:03

Hi Matt, I suppose one of the problems I have is I dont know what level of periferal vision is to be expected with progressive lenses? With these ones I have just got, if Im looking at the centre of my monitor and cast my gaze to the left and right sides of the screen its out of focus. To me this seems quite limited. Driving is ..... well interesting as well!!!

J


mattp 27 Feb 2005, 06:20

Jarred--

That awful peripheral vision in progressives is a problem. For years I wore bifocals and then trifocals because I could not get used to the blur on the sides of my vision. For three months now, I have forced myself to wear progressives--and I have gotten used to it. And the progressive vision in the center is nice. Good luck!!

Matt


Andrew 26 Feb 2005, 14:34

Jake,

In answer to your question about the extra line of letters, it is probably just that - an extra set of letters. If you have to read / try to read the same set of letters too often during an eye exam, you think you can just about read them, when actually, you cannot really. By having alternative sets of letters for you to read, they can tell whether you can really read them, or are just remembering them from 30 seconds earlier when you actually could read them!


Jarred 26 Feb 2005, 07:46

Hi All, I collected my new glasses today with my revised prescription. R+1.50 -1.75 105 5.50 Base Out L+1.50 -1.75 65 5.50 base out I have +2.00 of add and the prisms to control acomodative esotropia. I was told that varifocals would be better for me than the bifocals I have used for years ... but the peripheral vision is appalling! All but the very centre of the lens is useful both distant and close. Is this normal? They are Nikon lenses which have taken them over a month to make up so you would think they are reasonable quality. The other thing I have found is that the high index material creates even more chromatic abberations. I will give myself a few days to TRY and get used to them but at the moment its not looking good. Has anyone else noticed these problems with hi index and varifocals ......and found a solution? The clear focus (in the middle) at all distances is nice!!


Dave 26 Feb 2005, 00:50

My astigmatism is -1.75, -1.25 (sphere +0.25) and while not impossible reading and computer work without glasses is very uncomfortable. Daytime driving isn't a problem but I wouldn't drive at night without them.


Christy 26 Feb 2005, 00:01

My cyl is -2.00 and -2.50. That's more than my sph correction, which is -2.25 and -1.75. My astigmatism means that nothing is really clear at any distance, even though I could walk down the street in safety without getting hit by a truck. The bonus, of course, is that it means I can wear my glasses all the time!


Julian 25 Feb 2005, 22:58

Agreed. My astigmatism is less than either of yours and it's still enough to be a nuisance. But it can be really high for some people. When some people calculate a 'total error' they add HALF the cylinder to the sphere...I think this is nonsense as a dioptre of astigmatism is as much of a handicap as a dioptre of hyperopia - or presumably myopia though I have no experince of that.


STEVE 25 Feb 2005, 16:02

Jared I totally agree with you, without my glasses using the computer is just about impossible.


Jarred 25 Feb 2005, 13:41

Hi Steve. Astigmatism from about 2d upwards is considered quite high. My Astigmatism has stabalised at -1.75 and I certainly wouldnt drive without glasses. Reading and using the computer is pretty hard work without them as well.


Steve 25 Feb 2005, 10:24

Does anybody know how bad can astigmatism be? The reason I ask is my prescription is +.75 / -1.50 @ 165 and +50 / -2.00 @ 142, and without my glasses everything is pretty bad.


Jake 24 Feb 2005, 11:48

Does anybody know what all the things on the 'eyetest board' (sorry dont know the technical term 'if any'!)are?

Obviosuly the letters test basic subjective vision and I have read that the red/green divide simply gives a more precise reading, but last time I went to the opticians he kept asking me to read the row of letters under the red/green diagram. Does anybody know what this measures? is it astigmatism perhaps?


Thom 24 Feb 2005, 11:38

Hi Paul,

My 1st visit contained:

- autorefraction (+/- 5 mins) (watching to a balloon at several distances)

- subjective refraction (+/- 15 mins)(reading with different glasses)

- visual field (+/- 30 mins) (you place your head in a half bowl and light dots are lighting up, every time you see one you have to press a button, the computer calculates your visual field)

- colour tests (+/- 15 mins)

- EEG of the visual paths in the brain (+/- 30 mins) (3 electrodes when you're watching at the centre of an image consisting of moving black and white squares)

- slit-lamp examination with dialated eyes (+/- 45 mins, dialation takes 30 mins) (they give you eyedrops to widen your pupil (? - not sure of the correct term), so they can examine your retina quite well)

- eye pressure (+/- 5 mins)

- talks

Hope you're helped with this information...

Greetz,

Thom


Paul 24 Feb 2005, 06:11

Can anyone tell me what to expect on a 1st visit to an orthoptist? My eye doctor is sending me to see one as I have been having slight double vision on and off and she cant find the problem


Bored 15 Feb 2005, 15:03

Richard: Can you point me in the direction of this "clinical evidence". Clinically, I find most people with the type of symptoms described to have a small amount of hyperopia when cyclopleged. During refraction they crave minus, hence the term we use, "minus eater", but it all goes away with either Tropicamide or Cyclopentalate.


Tammy 11 Feb 2005, 12:54

Dave, Yes, i believe they are the ones.


Dave 11 Feb 2005, 12:39

Tammy are these the ones?

http://www.framesdirect.com/framesfp/Eyewear-lcmgsa/r.html


Tammy 11 Feb 2005, 12:27

Well, i got a compliment on my new glasses today, so i guess i really didn't need to complain about them.


Tammy 11 Feb 2005, 08:18

Katy, Yes, my new glasses are brown plastic frames.


Katy 10 Feb 2005, 16:53

Tammy - are they plastic frames? They sound great. I got some dark brown plastic ones that are a bit dramatic and it took me about a week to get used to how they look - but I love them now :-)


Tammy 10 Feb 2005, 15:47

Well, Tuesday i got my new glasses. They weren't what i expected them to be like. When i went in to pick them out, i fell in love with these frames right away when i saw them on the rack. I had to have them. When i tried them on before ordering them, the receptionist said that they looked good on me, that is why i got these frames. That day there was only the receptionist there to help me pick out my new frames, the optician is only there 2 days a week, and my grandpa didn't want to help me pick them out. I must say that these frames are different from what i've ever had in the past. They are a limited Edition frame. The color of the frames is called brown crystal, and the name of the frame is Manhattan. The lenses are kinda a rectangular shape, only they are wider towards the outside of the frame, and more narrower towards the inside of the frame. The lenses are also high index plastic and about a 1/4 of an inch thick on the outer edges. I will get used to how they look on me, and please forgive me for complaining. At least i can see!


Richard 08 Feb 2005, 14:13

I think John's theory is right - there's clinical evidence to back up the concept of 'almost myopia' leading to real myopia.


John 08 Feb 2005, 09:48

Bored -

"Almost" nearsighted is an expression, pretty obvious I think, for someone whose refraction has gone from a low plus (say +0.5 to +1) to Zero or a very low minus (say -0.25). "Almost nearsighted" in the sense that changing focus from near to far takes some time because of how completely the lens needs to relax, and also in the sense that it's likely the person is on their way to becoming nearsighted, even if they currently can see 20/20 in an exam. If you're in this category, you're going to notice that it takes a few seconds to see clearly in the distance after looking at things up close, and this isn't something that used to happen to you. This is not to say the hyperopia theory couldn't be correct, but the very-low-myopia theory does fit the symptoms.


Puffin 07 Feb 2005, 18:38

I think "almost long sighted" means when you are long sighted but your accomodation is just about enough to cover up for the undercorrection of the natural lens.

Then either your accomodation ability goes down and it can't make up for the unchanged amount of hyperopia, or else the hyperopia gets worse and you're stuck the other way, and it's time to visit the optician.


DNM 07 Feb 2005, 17:38

Thanks!


Katy 07 Feb 2005, 17:10

D.N.M - it is where they paralyse the accomdation muscles with eyedrops so they can see whether there is any latent hypermetropia that is being hidden by the patient accomodating over it.


D.N.M. 07 Feb 2005, 16:40

I'm sorry, but what exactly is a cycloplegic refraction?

thanks


Bored 07 Feb 2005, 15:10

John, what the heck does "almost" near-sighted mean. Either you are or you are not. Willy's right, he just doesn't know why. She's has a small hyperopic Rx and is suffering from accommodative spasm. Andrew, I bet your friend did not have a cycloplegic refraction, almost all of those with symptoms of dist. blur following extended near work are hyperopic when cyclopleged.


Hollie 05 Feb 2005, 13:06

Kate

I had a similar thing about a year before I got glasses, switching from board to book was difficult. A few months after this the board started to get blurry and I had an eyetest, resulting in a mild prescription for shortsightedness. So Andrew is probably right.


Andrew 05 Feb 2005, 12:36

About a year ago, I would have said long-sighted, Kate, but someone I know was complaining of exactly the same sort of thing. I managed to persuade her to get her eyes tested, and she came back with a prescription of -0.25 and -0.5; she got it filled as she was getting headaches from switching from near to far and back. Result? No more headaches. She's about due for a check-up, I reckon, so it'll be interesting to see if/how her eyes have changed in the last year.


John 04 Feb 2005, 20:16

Kate -- Willy is probably wrong. More likely, you are *almost* nearsighted. This is a normal symptom of someone just before they become more noticably nearsighted. (When you are a little farsighted, it's easier for the eyes to relax *enough* to see clearly in the distance. When your eyes are just barely emmetropic, almost nearsighted, they have to relax ALL THE WAY in order to see clearly in the distance, and this can take a few seconds or even several minutes.

Are you someone who would like to have to wear glasses, or someone who wouldn't?


Willy 04 Feb 2005, 13:08

Kate -- Of course, another even more commmon symptom of hyperopia would be headache or eyestrain from reading. If you have been experiencing that, then all of us here would certainly recommend an eye exam...


Willy 04 Feb 2005, 13:03

Kate -- You would be farsighted rather than nearsighted; if you were nearsighted, you would not be able to focus on distant materials regardless of how long you looked at them. From your post, it sounds like you are not at the age where presbyopia is hitting yet. Time in changing focus from near to far can be a symptom of farsightedness, so it may make sense to get an exam. If you do, let us know how it goes.


Kate 04 Feb 2005, 12:14

I have been noticing that when I'm reading a book or looking at my notes in class and then looking up to the overhead or powerpoint screen, it takes a few seconds to focus, does that mean I'm nearsighted or farsighted?


Digger 02 Feb 2005, 11:15

Yes, one sphere and one cylinder is just an approximation. I read somewhere about a scientist who built lenses to correct all of the refractive error of his eyes, which he measured with a laser. When he tried them he had fantastic acuity, 20/10 or maybe 20/5, literally eagle-eyed. Must have been a strange sensation. It would seem that the retina is not the limiting factor.


Puffin 01 Feb 2005, 17:00

Maybe you have a bit of secondary astigmatism, ie in another plane to the first bit.


 01 Feb 2005, 16:30

You probably need more minus sphere.


Val 31 Jan 2005, 21:44

Maybe your best corrected vision is 20/15 or even 20/10.


 31 Jan 2005, 16:56

I was playing with my wife's glasses and found that her left lens rotated gives me better distance vision than my own.

Hers: OS -0.25 -1.50 x 080

Mine: OS +0.25 -1.25 x 023

My own prescription is up to date and gives me 20/20 vision. I can't imagine why hers would be better.


big ES fan 31 Jan 2005, 08:55

I hit the wrong button.


big  31 Jan 2005, 08:53

Niall, I prefer the green and red test because for me it seems to be more accurate. I'm farsighted with moderate astigmatism. I'ts been awhile but if I remember right, as they add plus power the green gets clearer and the red gets out of focus, and just the opposite with minus. I asked the eye doctor and he said each color has a different wave length which your eyes focus on differently. If they use the clearest green reading you will leave with a higher plus power. It's hard to get some doctors to use this test because they get more complaints of too much plus power and they have to remake your glasses. I'm sure someone else here can explain this better than me.


Niall 31 Jan 2005, 05:58

Does anyone out there know what the circles using the green and red backgrounds in an eye test show? Sometimes when I go to the optician they only use the letter (snellen chart?) but others seem to be obsessed with using this green/red distinction!! Does it give a more accurate reading then the straightforward letters test and which one is suppose to be clearer becasue I can never tell the difference!!


Phil 31 Jan 2005, 00:46

Well done Hollie: an inspiration to us all! Just Clare and I to go!!


Hollie 30 Jan 2005, 15:22

I must admit, it wasn't that bad. But still feels very odd whenever I go out somewhere and realise I still have my glasses on! Not that many comments from people, except my boyfriend, who asked why I was wearing them now, and I told him I was fed up with not being able to see clearly. He said 'You've managed up till now' which I thought was a bit rich coming from someone whos a fulltime wearer at -1, but there you go!

Hopefully, in june or july will be able to go back to contacts again.


Bespectacled Professor 30 Jan 2005, 11:12

Good for you, Hollie.

Bet it wasn't nearly the problem you thought it was going to be.


Hollie 30 Jan 2005, 07:55

I have finally give into it- have been wearing my glasses fulltime for 5 days now!

I'm still getting used to it- am loving the clear view but the fact they are there on my face most of the day is still new to me.

The first day I wore them was on wednesday, to a tutorial, and I always wear them there, so not much different. But on friday, I wore them to a nightclub- something I thought I would never do! Have been wearing the plastic pair because you can't see the lens thickness with them, which is good.

Can't believe I actually had the guts to do this, am quite proud of myself actually!


Helen 30 Jan 2005, 03:16

Hi, I just found this site and I didn't know anything like this existed on the internet!

Me and my three sisters all wear glasses, all the time. We don't really like wearing them but our parents won't let us get contacts (we are twins aged 14 and 2 others me, I'm 15, and the other 12) because they say we are not old enough. My parents can't believe we all need to wear glasses because they don't!


 26 Jan 2005, 18:02

Puffin,

Whose glasses are you referring to as pointless? Katy's bf or guest's friend or both???


Puffin 26 Jan 2005, 17:14

I think glasses that weak are fairly pointless - unless you are making money from making glasses.


Katy 26 Jan 2005, 16:34

Kay - my bf has -0.5 cyl in both eyes and says things are just as clear with or without his glasses - he can't tell the difference. He just wears them because they have prism in them.


-- 26 Jan 2005, 16:11

guest, her prescription is primarily for astigmatism


Brian-16 26 Jan 2005, 14:58

Prism Desirer- Be careful in going for prism rx.Start low around 2d or 3d base out.


guest 26 Jan 2005, 14:36

Kay,

I asked a similar question the other day and got no reply. I have a friend with a prescription of R- plano, -.50 cyl and L- +75, -1.00cyl. She has excellent distance vision that is at least 20/20 and yet she wears them for distance vision even though she can see all kinds of things without her glasses that the rest of us have to strain to see. Does anyone know what her prescription is really for and can explain it. Does she even need this??


-- 26 Jan 2005, 14:24

for me (-.5 cyl) the difference seems to be between 20/15 and 20/30 (befoee I started wearing lenses with cyl), but then I am in my 40s now, and this is sort of new, so maybe I will end up with more. When I was younger I was 20/15 w/o glasses, now I am low plus, lower cyl, medium add.

I can read without the cyl, but then I get headaches


Kay 26 Jan 2005, 14:07

Many people write here about prescription of weak cylinders (0.5 or less) standalone or as addition to sphere. Eye doctors from my country treat astigmatism

0.5 and below as "physiological" and don't want to prescribe correction. They say "You don't need this!".

Does somebody know about acuity with prescribed weak cylinder glasses? How acuity better with cyl than without?


Prism desirer 25 Jan 2005, 14:12

Thanks Prism user. I'd love to try wearing prism. I'm intrigued, as many of us here, about what the experience of various lenses is like. And yes, I would like to be more dependent on my glasses, as strange as that might sound to some.

Spexman: How have you got on trying out prism?


Phil 25 Jan 2005, 00:49

Cooper I have varifocals with a +2 add. But still take glasses off to read, assuming I've had them on in the first place! Even the optician admits that a myope like me will always see better to read without any correction.


Cooper 24 Jan 2005, 17:09

Phil, have you given any thoughts to getting bifocals?


fulltime wearer 21 Jan 2005, 08:24

Also, I agree with phil- once I went fulltime going without seemed much harder than before because my eyes were used to having the correction. But you guys should try it- its definitely worth a bit of embarrassment at first to be able to see everything clearly with relaxed eyes, no headaches....glasses are great!


fulltime wearer 21 Jan 2005, 08:23

At first when I started wearing glasses fulltime, I was scared of what people would think. But I have some great frames and feel much better and more confident when I can see everything clearly. When I take them off I feel like you do when you have them on phil, quite awkward, because I think I must squint and just generally it irritates me not being about to see things really clearly. I guess it helps that my boyfriend loves me in glasses, he thinks they really suit me and knew I needed them before I got them because he would often have to point out things in the distance to me.


Phil 21 Jan 2005, 07:49

Yes Clare, exactly. I would think that you looked great wearing yours but worried that I looked terrible wearing mine! I do like to see clearly though. Putting on a new pair of specs with an increased rx is great. So I am just a mixed up chap!!


Clare 21 Jan 2005, 05:10

... and Phul, are youlike me - really glasses on others but not on yourself?


Clare 21 Jan 2005, 05:08

Phil I do agree with you about getting used to them and so not being able to go without. Can you explain the difference though between my vanity and your awkwardness/embarrassment? - aren't they a symptom of the same issue? I guess in the end what matters is how much clarity you need eh?


Phil 21 Jan 2005, 04:23

Clare, My rx is slightly higher than your new one (-3.5 and -3.25) and I don't wear full-time. For me it's not vanity but more embarrassment or awkwardness. We OOs make so much of glasses that we think that it is hugely significant whether we are wearing or not. That is something the rest of the world just can't understand! I also think that once one does wear fulltime it must be harder to imagine what it is like not to (whatever one's rx). If I wear for a whole day I just can't see anything when I take my specs off!


Clare 21 Jan 2005, 01:34

fulltime wearer - vanity I guess and a desire to put it off as long as possible. I'd never had any guidance from an optician before so I asked this time and he said that it would be helpful (!) to wear them for all distance activities. So the advice wasn't to wear fulltime but just often I think. I usually wear contacts, I just can't make that leap to wearing glasses all the time when I'm not. Hey, I get by!


fulltime wearer 21 Jan 2005, 01:15

Clare, I think my prescription card just says -2.25 under a box saying 'sph'. The 'cyl' box is empty.

How come you don't wear fulltime? The optician told me my eyes were bad enough to benefit from fulltime wear, and I guess they are the ones in the know.


Prism user 20 Jan 2005, 23:25

Prism Desirer:

Why do you only desire them?

Why not have them?

They won't hurt you if you don't need them. If you end up crosseyed from continous wear, then you probably needed them in the first place.


Val 20 Jan 2005, 22:20

experimenter, yes, a change in degree makes a difference.


experimenter 20 Jan 2005, 19:48

Hi, my actual Rx is

R: +0.75 sph

L: +1.00 -0.50 25 deg

As an experiment I got a pair slightly stronger:

R: +1.00 -0.25 180 deg

L: +1.25 -0.50 25 deg

I'm trying them out and experiencing slight headaches, though I can see fine. Is it from the higher plus or from the new cylinder in the right eye? Would a change in degrees make a difference? Thanks.


Clare 20 Jan 2005, 15:40

Actually makes little difference, but I was -2.50 not -2.25 ... sorry not concentrating! I'm sure no-one cares but me.


Clare 20 Jan 2005, 15:33

fulltime wearer - otherwise known as astigmatism ...


fulltime wearer 20 Jan 2005, 15:26

what is cylinder?


Clare 20 Jan 2005, 15:15

Hi fulltime wearer I recently graduated from 2.25 to 2.75. Ive been a regular contacts wearer for the last couple of years but never a fulltime glasses wearer so without contacts often means without correction for me. Yes, youre right, it is a blurry world without them but one that I think you can adapt to if you choose. There are times when I dont have my contacts in that Id love to wear glasses instead, but Im vain so I put up with it until it becomes an absolute necessity.

Does your prescription include any cylinder?


fulltime wearer 20 Jan 2005, 06:53

I am a first-time visitor to this site and was just reading the posts on this thread. My prescription is -2.25 both eyes and I wear my glasses all the time, I was told to by the optician and also I really can't see without them! I can't understand how people who are -3 or even -4 can manage, I broke my glasses and had to go without them for a day once, it was really annoying and couldn't even see peoples faces in the street til they were really close!

Am I weird that I wear glasses fulltime with -2.25? People must be walking around in a blurry world if they go without their glasses!


Hollie 19 Jan 2005, 07:01

Hi all

Haven't been on this thread for a while as I didn't have internet access. Someone asked me if I wore glasses for my job, well I'm a student, and I definitely wear them for lectures. I also usually wear them for my tutorials, even though most of its close work, in case I can't make something out. But the rest of the time- pretty much no. Usually on the computer, but not usually for reading unless its small type/ my eyes are tired, because when I'm tired everything seems to be more blurry- is this normal? I put my glasses on at night if I'm not going anywhere just to relax my eyes. So, in fact, I guess I do wear them quite a bit!! Yesterday I went for lunch with them on, and when I was in the queue, noticed I could read the menu board from where I was standing and realised I had left my glasses on. One of my friends commented on them, and asked to try them (she wears glasses herself, just for distance, probably about -1 I would guess) and said she could see through them OK but they felt like they were 'pulling' her eyes. She is one of the first people I have come across that hasn't commented on the strength! Maybe that means she needs a stronger rx- she squints a fair bit at distant stuff I noticed, and often wears her glasses for the computer.

Bespecatcled professor, how did you get to the -4 figure? I presumed my sight wasn't much different from someone with just my sphere, which is -3.50 and -3.25.


Spexman 18 Jan 2005, 12:01

Prism desirer

Hello !!

No I dont think so I have made up a pair for goc with minus 14 and 2 d prism out each, which I wear sometimes but they dont real good it should be more correct measured and calculated then I have done..PD vs amount of prism and strong hi index lenses is not best to mess with...I was I think more interested in how she so fast could tolerate that pretty strong + glasses she had been wearing without needing them I cant even see with + 1 at distance and on the other hand never tried for longer times either..


Tammy 18 Jan 2005, 08:07

Guest, Yes i do know that!

Tom, Thank you for your kind words.


Tom 18 Jan 2005, 02:26

Tammy, I would like to meet girl with glasses like yours. I imagine you're beautiful!

I wish you to have perfect vision with your new pair.


guest 17 Jan 2005, 21:45

Tammy,you know most of us here can only dream about a girl like you.I'm sure you'll look great in your new glasses.Take care


Tammy 17 Jan 2005, 20:13

Guest, Oh, you would like to eat them, huh? lol :)

I'm in a good mood, what can i say? I know you are really saying that they sound very nice and like the Rx! Thanks very much!


guest 17 Jan 2005, 20:06

Tammy,your glasses sound YUMMI!!!


Tammy 17 Jan 2005, 19:47

Well, today i picked out my new glasses. I chose some brown plastic frames, with rectangular shaped lenses, which are kinda similar to the ones i am currently wearing, except that my new glasses will be plastic, not metal, and a little bit bigger in size. They also will be a little bit lighter in color. Again the Rx that's going to be in them is OD -15.00 x +1.00 x 180 and OS -14.00 x +2.00 x 045 add both side +3.00. I will get them in about 4 to 6 weeks...i know that's a long wait, but she told me that my new glasses could come in much earlier than that.


Prism desirer 17 Jan 2005, 14:55

Spexman: Are you thinking of starting with prism?


Spexman 17 Jan 2005, 11:33

Hello Katy and thanx for your help it was correct..I had forgotten where it was posted.. It was in lenses

I find it very interesting it would be even more interesting to know how old she was when doing this..And also more in detail know how long time it took to get used to this +3.50 something she got from her friend..

Maybe its easier to "ruin" your vision by using + glasses then with minus glasses if you dont need them at all and then if you also add prism then.....


Jules 16 Jan 2005, 17:37

Ok, perhaps this is the wrong forum for this question...

Today, I bought some glasses at Lenscrafters (some really funky tianium half-rimless ones - quite cool!). My prescription is -5.25 in both eyes. I was floored when my final bill was $407.00 (that included a $100 discount, from insurance). The frames were $170, 1.67 lenses $260, and AR coating was $70. Granted, they have the 30-day return policy. However, I feel like I could do better, price-wise. Searching through various websites, it seems that the same lenses and AR coating aren't NEARLY as much. What do you guys think? I'm sort of weary about purchasing online - and I can't find the same frames anywhere :-( (I believe the brand/model number is Hikari 4687 - perhaps this is a Lenscrafters-only brand?). I really like these glasses, but I'm such a tightwad. Help?!?!


 16 Jan 2005, 14:26

I think it was Larissa's friend, but was with minus lenses.


Katy 16 Jan 2005, 13:49

Spexman - was it Zane, in Lenses, 19 Nov 04? Don't think Zane is a girl's name but could be.. :-)


Spexman 16 Jan 2005, 12:42

Hello I just wanted to ask for some info and help...There was a girl a while ago who had used a friends + glasses with prism and who had got depended on them afterwards... Ihave checked many of the threads and spend a lot of time but not found it..Is there some one who remember it and can give me knowledge about where to find it again ??


 15 Jan 2005, 19:11


Brian-16 15 Jan 2005, 12:49

Tammy-The reason I asked is because my parents do not have 20/20 with their glasses and their rx is slightly less than mine.I already have 20/25 in my right eye,and strain to see 20/20 with my left eye even when I get examined.


Tammy 15 Jan 2005, 10:25

Brian-16, As far as i know, i used to have 20/20 vision with my glasses...i don't really know, as i only became interested in my Rx a short time before i found Eye Scene, and that's probally been about 4 or 5 years ago. I've been with ES now so long that i actually have lost count of how many years i've been with this website.


-- 15 Jan 2005, 07:00

they must be making some improvements in lenses - my good friend, who is a very high myope, told me that her latest prescription has her seeing 20/20 out of both eyes for the first time in years. She is very much relieved. They are sv high index lenses.


Brian-16 15 Jan 2005, 05:39

Tammy-Did you ever have 20/20 vision with glasses? I asked because by the time I get out of college in four years or so,my rx will probably be like yours.I am just under -12d now.


Tammy 14 Jan 2005, 16:13

Me again. I forgot to mention that when I was given my new paper Rx today, i asked what my visual acuity would be with the new glasses, and i was told that i would be 20/30 in both eyes with the new glasses. This is good, since with my old glasses, i was corrected to 20/40 in the left eye and 20/50 in the right.


Tammy 14 Jan 2005, 10:36

I had my eye exam today, and i got a new Rx. My old Rx is OD -15.50 x +1.00 x 090 and OS -13.00 plano with an add of +3.00 in both lenses.

My new Rx is OD -15.00 x +1.00 x 180 and OS -14.00 x +2.00 x 045. I still have an add of +3.00 on both sides.

I haven't picked out my new glasses yet.


Wayne_D 13 Jan 2005, 22:56

Mary,

I believe your question about the difference in contact lens strength versus glasses has been on the board before. I remember the answer to be that the stronger your correction the greater the differential will be between contact lenses and glasses. In low prescriptions there is little or no difference between the two.


guest 13 Jan 2005, 22:54

Luke

How strong is your rx and do you wear glasses all the time now?


Luke 13 Jan 2005, 20:47

Clare - "other issues"...well, lots of things, probably, but an example (and probably a typical one) is that I somewhat frequently hesitate to go ask a colleague at work a question. There will be something we are working on that I figure they know about. I will figure that it is something I probably should already know, and I don't ask them because I don't want them to think badly of me. Obviously, the productive approach is to ask; ignorance is combatted by learning, not by remaining ignorant. But my silly fear gets in the way; it's largely the same as the glasses/vanity thing.


Andy 13 Jan 2005, 14:42

Julian, I'm not really sure why I waited so long for a second eyetest. I knew my eyes were getting worse and I did wear my older glasses more often, although most of the time I still went without. For a few months before I knew that I should book an appointment to get new glasses, but for one reason or another I never got round to it. It was only when I was about to be 17 and was going to start driving I finially got round to it. Although I knew my vision was getting worse, I don't think I really noticed how much worse it had got. It was only when I got my glasses and started wearing them I realised this.


Clare 13 Jan 2005, 13:23

Luke - you're right. I'd love to be liberated and confident enough to make that choice and disregard everyone else! If I'm tired sometimes the last thing I want to do is put in CLs and that's when I'll go without and put up with it. The optician said sometimes you may not want to wear them if you're tired or your eyes are dry, but I don't think that meant go without anything! That's okay when I'm just at my desk.

Sounds like you made good progress though, so what are your issues?


Andrew 13 Jan 2005, 13:06

My glasses are -7.75 and -7.50; my contacts are -6.25 (both eyes). There will be a difference between the two, simply because of the distance the glasses are away from the eyes, but how great that difference is seems to vary. I used to have contact lenses which were -7, and I was beginning to feel I needed readers to go with them. I can now see perfectly well with the reduced power contacts, and have, I hope, put off the readers for a little while yet.


glfc 13 Jan 2005, 07:45

Mary, your prescription is similiar to mine and your increase was similiar to my increase last summer. How old are you? I'm 19. My Rx is R:-5.25 L:-4.75 My Acuvue contacts I use to play sports are R:-5.00 and L-4.50. It probably depends on how well your vision is with your contacts. If you could see well with those contacts, then it's fine.

Best,

glfc


Mary 13 Jan 2005, 07:29

Oh yeah - forgot to mention! - I am going to get my prescription filled at Lenscrafters (Due to the fact that they have a 30-day return policy.). How can I tell if my prescription is slightly overcorrected (If it is!)?


Mary 13 Jan 2005, 07:20

I just got a new prescription: -5.25 in both eyes (no astigmatism). However, my contacts prescription is -4.50 in both. My previous glasses prescription was -4.25 in both eyes, while my contact prescription was -4.00.

I have yet to get my glasses prescription filled. Does this contrast in diopters, between glasses and contacts, seem a bit much? I've never had more than -.25 difference between glasses and contacts. My vision, with the contacts, seems perfectly fine. I also switched from Surevue to Acuvue Advance contacts, but would that make any difference?


Luke 13 Jan 2005, 06:02

Clare, Hollie -- Having been a person who wore contacts for years and was always self-conscious about wearing glasses, but then made the switch to (almost) full-time wear, I have to admit that situations like yours do sort of pain me. Because a month or so of full time wear pretty much allowed me to get over myself and grow up (that's how I see it for myself, looking back) a little. I'm definitely a lot more free now...I actually have a choice whether to wear glasses or contacts. I think that's the real point: if you're -3ish or more and you're not wearing correction most of the time, I think that means you do NOT feel like you have a choice -- you don't really feel free to make the choice that would be the most comfortable to you (because of what you think someone else might think - and there's no denying this is the case for you two, since you have no issue with wearing contacts all the time). Don't get me wrong...while I got over my issues about wearing glasses, I know I have other issues that are similar (worrying about what people think, even though I shouldn't care). I hope that as time goes on, I can get over those things too, but we'll see. But I guess I can sympathize with B.P's over-aggressive attitude because the gain to be had by getting comfortable wearing glasses all the time (the gain: a *real* choice) is really quite substantial - and the process to get there is (potentially) pretty simple. (Simple means 'not complex'; it does not necessarily mean 'easy'. I know.)


guest 12 Jan 2005, 13:58

Hollie what job do you do - do you find you really need them for work or do you already wear them there? Hope you get back into contacts soon. Best.


Clare 12 Jan 2005, 13:36

Some people here might groan as I enter this debate as I've whinged on about it for ages. They key words here are 'manage' and 'choice' both imply a strong degree of subjective interpretation. It's only when personal safety is at risk that that choice should be removed. I could 'manage' okay, as long as I didn't drive, no doubt I'd get to where I needed to go - not comfortably maybe - but it certainly would be possible. Then again I might choose not to put up with it but to be 'sensible' and wear my glasses, that'd certainly be the best and easiest option. I admire people who can accept it on terms this simple, Hollie, Phil and I probably wish we could too!


no name 12 Jan 2005, 10:33

actually, PF makes a valid point about people who don't wear their glasses and constantly rely on thier friends to read or see things for them. I always respond politely and helpfully, but after a couple of times, I begin to resent it, just as I do when friends ask me to carry extra things for them because they assume I am stronger (I might be because I don't expect others to carry my load), or pay more because they think I am richer (I'm not, I'm just more careful with my money) After a couple of times I feel resentful that they have assumed that I should continually cater to thier needs.

Of course, they probably don't realise (or care) that I feel this way, they just laugh or say "I'm so blind" when I sugggest that they should get or wear glasses. Sorry, but it's true.


Phil 12 Jan 2005, 09:57

Bespectacled Professor. You are being far too hard on Hollie. Who are you to tell her what she "should" do? Adoption of an affected title does not legitimise your inconsiderate tone. Do you not realise that for most of us here whether or not to wear glasses fulltime is a difficult decision, not necessarily to be determined only by reference to how well we can see without them?


Bespectacled Professor 12 Jan 2005, 09:46

Hollie,

With your astigmatism, your prescription is effectively -4. That's a strong prescription to go without glasses. Look at what you have said in the last few days. First, you say that you need to wear glasses for reading depending on the size type. If you are nearsighted and have to wear your glasses for reading, then you should be wearing them fulltime.

Second, you have to have people act as your eyes while you are out. I'm sure your boyfriend (and other friends) point stuff out for you because they care for you. On the other hand, they would be doing you more of a favor if they told you to put your glasses on.

You say you are able to manage without your glasses. I think you are just fooling yourself.


Hollie 12 Jan 2005, 07:31

Its not getting used to glasses I have a problem with- I've worn them for 5 years. And the only reason I'm wearing them now is because I can't wear contacts for about 6 months because I have a problem with my eyes.

Clare, yes it is very annoying out and about- especially after getting used to having correction full-time when I wore contacts. I must admit that even I will put my glasses on when I go shopping- I have to get too close to the price tages for it to be practical without. I can imagine, since you're nealy at -3, that you have similar problems too. I usually manage on nights out- but then I will ask my boyfriend and friends where stuff is! Wearing glasses to go shopping is one thing, but i know I would never wear them on a night out- it feels wrong to wear them when I know I can manage without.


Clare 11 Jan 2005, 11:43

There are plenty of people who feel the same and I'm one of them. It's horrible when people make you feel embarrassed, I had that last week. Two occasions in fact on the same night - the first pointing to something in the garden, my friend said "you can see that can't you?", I said, honestly "no, not from here" and she made a comment, not meant unkindly though. Then later in the evening she was pointing out a large new family photo on the wall and I got up to take a closer look, my friend (who has 20/20 vision) said "you're eyesight must be bad". I know her well enough not to care really, her husband wears glasses and thinks his -1.75 is strong so she must be kind of used to it.

But Hollie, if you don't wear glasses even when you're out and about, you must find it pretty difficult?


 11 Jan 2005, 09:18

Hollie,

It's pretty normal to be uncomfortable with glasses at first. I'm sure your boyfriend will gwet used to you in glasses (he might even really really like you in glasses, but doesn't want to appear too "eager" so he says he hopes you don't need to wear them all the time. At first its really odd to feel them and see them, but you get used to it! If you have pierced earrings, you can remember how wierd they felt at first! After a while your glasses will sort of feel like comfy slippers. Just wear them enough so that your eyes will be used to them and you can wear them without having to adapt to distance blur each time.

Or get contacts if you prefer. or both.


Bespectacled Professor 11 Jan 2005, 08:36

Hollie,

I understand your reluctance to wear glasses fulltime. But, if your eyes are bothering you because you are not wearing them, then you should wear them.


Hollie 11 Jan 2005, 07:00

Bespectacled professor

My boyfriend wears glasses fulltime, so he can't be hypocritical about it I suppose. The only negative comment h has ever made is that they get in the way of my 'pretty eyes' so he prefers it when I wear contacts. To be honest, I don't wear specs around him that much unless we are watching a DVD or I'm driving.

I'm not really sure why I don't want to go fulltime. Going back to my boyfriends dad, I was at their house last week, no correction, and he asked me what I thought of a new picture he had bought. I must have squinted to see it (it was pretty blurry) and he said, 'Put your specs on Hollie, honestly, its no good wandering around half-blind!' I was mortified, because his entire family was there, and it started a conversation about glasses, during which his dad took his glasses off and gave them to me, asking whether I could see now. I mumbled that I could, and his mum commented, 'You must have a strong prescription'. I said something about it not being very strong really and how I had left my glasses in the car, which seemed to end the embarrassing discussion. But, despite the embarrassment of that, that is the only time when I would feel more comfortable with my glasses on. most times, I feel much more comfortable bare-eyed. I think the whole not wanting to wear them fulltime thing is purely because I don't want to be seen to rely on glasses. With contacts, its a different story and no-one can see them in your eyes. I know its silly and vain, but I'm sure there must be other people who feel like this and not just me!


Neil 10 Jan 2005, 14:36

Katy it's -3. U?


Bespectacled Professor 10 Jan 2005, 11:45

Hollie,

I suspect you are realizing that despite your reluctance to wear glasses fulltime (when not wearing contacts) that your eyes are telling you something different. Would your boyfriend have a negative reaction if you decided to go to fulltime wear? Why do you think you are reluctant to go fulltime if everyone knows you wear glasses and that they already think the glasses are strong?


Hollie 10 Jan 2005, 02:46

A few people who are non-wearers have tried them on, but mostly people who have a weaker prescription than mine commenting that they're strong. I suspect it may be the astigmatism too which makes them seem strong. My boyfriends dad has a similar prescription to mine and when he tried my glasses on he couldn't believe I didn't wear them full-time as he said I must be 'blind' without them.

I agree with you about the looking over the top of your frames thing though, everything seems to 'jump' back into focus. Its been difficut for me to go from fulltime wearing back to part-time as my eyes were very used to the correction. The astigmatism bothers me quite a bit- headaches from concentrating on things etc.

Are you wearing your new glasses more Clare? Interestingly, when I got to -2.25 -0.75, the optician told me to wear full-time, I guess even with the atigmatism this is weaker than your prescription, so maybe all opticians think this type of rx is qute strong.


first time wearer 09 Jan 2005, 15:12

yes very relaxing i even seem to lose my place less when reading


VisitBoy 09 Jan 2005, 14:19

Interesting to read what Clare and Hollie have said about what is defined as strong. I'd have strong lenses by the Moorfields guy's definition, but I'd consider them mid-range.

The opticians will try anything to get you to pay more for lenses, though. I wanted standard lenses - not high-index - but was told that "they'll look ugly". It's difficult then to differ, as you'd be saying, in effect "I want to buy an ugly product". Well I got my standard lenses and they look fab!


 09 Jan 2005, 14:08

Hollie & Clare

Gorgeous


-oo- 09 Jan 2005, 12:23

firt time wearer: you are not imagining it! The cyl correction makes this so. You will probably get a bit more next time - this doesn't mean your eyes will get worse, they usually don't prescribe it all the first time. it's kind of nice snd more relaxing isnt it?


first time wearer 09 Jan 2005, 12:19

just got glasses today - weak prescription - 0.25 sph 05 cyl in both eyes.

in terestingl even things close up look a bit sharper and more detailed or am i imagining it?


George1968 09 Jan 2005, 11:48

Clare,

Glad you were pleased with your updated glasses. I guess what you have learned in the past year is that if you have those times where you can't or don't want to wear contacts, wearing your glasses will be OK.

I'd agree with your eye doctor's advice, that if you are without contacts to wear glasses when walking around out of the house. After all, we don't want to lose your input around here ;)


Katy 09 Jan 2005, 10:04

Neil, what's your rx?


Neil 09 Jan 2005, 09:58

My cousin is an optician. He encouraged me to make the change to full time wear. His view was that if you arent seeing as well as you should, glasses can cure the problem so why wouldn't you want to wear them. He said to me that whether you wear them or not you won't make your eyesight worse. I have to trust him on that one as after just two months i'm struggling without them now. I don't have an issue with wearing them at all and hopefully people will get used to it in time.


Tammy 09 Jan 2005, 09:42

My eye exam has been rescheduled for January 14, 2005.


Clare 09 Jan 2005, 09:02

Surprised me too Hollie. It suprised me back in the summer, that's why I asked yesterday. I wonder whether the pros have a slightly different view? Those of us who visit this site though know that there are lots of people with higher scripts. Those people who say your glasses are strong, are they non-glasses wearers? When I went in for the CL check yesterday the new/old glasses were ready, the assistant suggested I put them on to try them; because I had contacts in though I got a sense of what they must be like for people with 20/20 vision who try them on. Everything's slightly out of focus! I guess if you're not used to that it comes as a bit of a shock. You must get a sense though of how strong they are if you look over the top? I can with -2.75 and your Rx is stronger than mine.


Hollie 09 Jan 2005, 07:07

Thats really interesting Clare. My prescription would be considered fairly strong in your opticians opinion, and other people who try on my glasses seem to think they are strong, but to me it doesn't seem that strong at all, if that makes any sense?

I mean, obviously I can tell the difference from when I was -0.75, but to me it doesn't seem as if my eyesight is horrendously bad, which several friends assume it must be after trying on my glasses.


Clare 08 Jan 2005, 15:02

I went to collect my old glasses with the new prescription today (-2.75) and I asked in a general sense how much he thought I should wear them. I told him that when I went to Moorfields (Eye Hospital) back in the summer they said my vision was 'quite bad' without my glasses. I said that I didn't think it was, was it? He said he thought it was and that -2.75 was quite strong, which surprised me. He reckons that 0 to -1.75 is low, -2 to -3.75 is quite strong and over -4 strong. That surprised me. I told him that, when not wearing contacts, I'm inclined to go without except for driving and matters of personal safety and he patiently explained that he had to recommend that I should wear them for driving, tv, movies etc, that I don't need them around the house or for reading (he must know I already know that!) but he thought it would be a good idea to wear them when I was out, like walking down the street. Sure I understand what he means but concur with Andrew that it's possible to get about even if you don't.

Anyway, that was an interesting conversation and my old/new glasses look just great. I was so pleased with them I wore them to Sainsbury's. And I didn't see anyone I knew, at least to talk to.


Andrew 08 Jan 2005, 14:12

"I'm -2.75 and would struggle in the outside world without them but could get by of course."

I suspect you've hit the nail on the head, Mal. When you are outside, it is more likely that the things you need to focus on are beyond arm's length. Thus, it is helpful to wear some form of correction.

Indoors, however, much of what we do is at much closer range, so it is possible to function without glasses in these circumstances. At work, it rather depends on the type of work as to whether we need them or not, and those with uncomplicated journeys to work may not need them at all. At -7.5, I could easily walk to the bus stop, catch the bus to the station (they all go to the station), and catch the train to London (I think there is only one train a day which does not go to London from the up platform) without any correction at all. If my job involved entirely close work, I could do it, but it is rather uncomfortable holding paper so close to my nose that I can see it clearly. It's a bit like sitting in the front row at the cinema, and you have to keep moving your head to see what's going on!


Tammy 08 Jan 2005, 09:42

BB, thanks for your well wishes as far as my eye exam and vision are concerned.


-oo- 08 Jan 2005, 09:15

I think that is quite common. I started wearing glasses most of the time (and always at work) when I started a new job - now when I see people from the old job, they don't comment on me wearing glasses at all, even though they've never seen me wear them before.

Also, if your first glasses have any power to them, and you are older than student age, then people will generally assume that you have stopped using contacts for the time being.

Whats fun is when people suddenly see you WITHOUT glasses, especially when you haven't worn them for very long. I got more comments the day I showed up without my (fairly new) glasses at the new job (it was snowing hard that morning) than I ever did from poeple who'd never seen me wear them before.

However, if YOU bring it up, people usually are pretty eager to discuss the situation (I guess there are a lot of people out there who are either facinated by glasses, or secretly think they need them!) I've also found that when friends or co-workers show up suddenly wearing glasses and I make a small comment (like "cool glasses") I find that they really want to talk about it! Just never never say something like "You don't really need to wear those!" That is the worst possible thing to hear!


Hollie 08 Jan 2005, 08:44

I always thought when I first started wearing glasses, that most people would comment. But it turns out, hardly any did! I was quite surprised at this. Does this mirror other people's experiences, or have you more comments than me?


Elaine 08 Jan 2005, 02:41

I went to my first eye test, not on my own accord, but because my mum dragged me after my teacher spoke to her.

I was 10 years old at the time, and knew I couldn't see properly cause I had problems seeing the board from the back of the class but I used to lie and tell my teacher I'd better sit in the front cause I was short and had to crane my neck to see behind the taller girls' heads. Well finally I couldn't even see properly from the front row any more (my eyesight had really deteriorated) and I failed a maths test because all the problems I copied from the board were copied wrongly (I had worked them out correctly) and so my teacher spoke to my mum. And off we went to the opticians. And I was given a -4.75 prescription in both eyes!


Julian 08 Jan 2005, 01:27

Andy: you have me slightly puzzled. You got your first glasses at 15. You wore them part time for two years before going for another test - by which time your vision with them was worse than your unaided vision was when you first got them. Getting a new, and more than doubled, prescription, you have cheerfully, not to say enthusiastically, taken to full time wear. Why did you wait so long? You certainly aren't alone; I know other people tell the same kind of story. And, by the way, what made you go for a test and get glasses in the first place? I only ask because I want to know!


Neil 07 Jan 2005, 22:50

I used to hate the comments people made. You must be able to see that/your eyes must be bad/can't you see it? You get comments when you go full time but at least the comments stop then.


Clare 07 Jan 2005, 11:29

Sounds like there are lots more people out there like me after all! Can't say that if I couldn't wear contacts that I'd never wear glasses though.


Maverick 07 Jan 2005, 05:52

Phil, Ive never, that I can recall, avoided driving / sport etc through not wearing correction. All I was saying is that apart from those sort of activities I could function perfectly Ok without glasses. I do wear full time by the way - its just easier and more convenient !


Phil 07 Jan 2005, 05:29

Mal,

I don't ever wear in the house: don't know why. Means I can't really see tv but otherwise ok. Wear out at weekends but not often at work. Bit of an embarrassment thing: can't really explain it.


Mal 07 Jan 2005, 04:07

Maverick do you mean that you've avoided driving and sport because you choose not to wear glasses or just that you wouldn't be able to do them without?

Phil do you venture out without glasses or do you mean that you're happy around the house without them?

I'm -2.75 and would struggle in the outside world without them but could get by of course.


Hollie 07 Jan 2005, 03:38

Until very recently, I would have been one of the people who said you needed correction fulltime at this level. But very recently I found out I can't wear contacts very often for a while, and daft as it may sound, I couldn't face fulltime glasses wearing! So now I wear glasses part-time, probably nealy half the time actually, as my prescription is -3.25 -1.25 and -3.50 -1, which is strong enough to need for lots of things- sometimes I even read with them on, as the book has to be fairly close to me if the type is small!

So yes, she wouldbe able to cope at this rx, its quite surprising that she doesn't wear though as most full-time wearers I know have lower (and some much lower) prescriptions than mine.


Maverick 07 Jan 2005, 01:47

I agree Phil. I'm -2.75 and can function quite happily without correction. Just means things like driving, watching TV / sports etc get put on the back burner.

Its a myth that around these levels you HAVE to wear correction full time. It is probably more convenient to do so but at the end of the day its still personal choice, not necessity.


Phil 07 Jan 2005, 01:04

Phill, I'm -3.5 and -3.25 and I often go without my glasses!


Phill 06 Jan 2005, 23:18

A girl at work says her prescription is -2.25 and -2.75. I've never seen her wear glasses. Is it possible to go without them at this prescription do you think? She says she can't wear contacts.


Andy 05 Jan 2005, 13:04

Hi guest. In terms of the change in my prescription it was two years since I last had an eye test. I am now 17, so perhaps a reasonable jump is normal? Yes, the optician did advise full time wear.


BB 04 Jan 2005, 06:05

Hi Tammy good luck for the incoming year, lets hope your eyes settle down and you have a lot less worry.

jennifer hope your enjoying being a mum, and baby is doing well miss our little chats.

Mari from Spain hope you had a wonderful festive season, hope your final exam results brought you joy, regards to your sister.

I do pray and hope you ll have a well earned new year and may you allbe blessed with happiness. Love to all my friends in eye scene, miss you all.

Bb with Love. xx


Tammy 03 Jan 2005, 14:08

Hi. Just thought i would pop in and let you folks know that i have scheduled an eye exam for January 27th.


guest 03 Jan 2005, 14:06

Andy that's a reasonable increase. How old are you and was wear full time the recommendation from your eye doc?


Andy 03 Jan 2005, 12:25

Neil, I know what you mean. This summer my prescription went up from (left eye) -1.00; -1.25 (right) to -2.50, -0.25, 10 (left eye), -2.75, -0.25, 5 (right) and I started wearing my glasses all the time. I cant imagine doing without them anymore. I like the clear vision and think I look really good in my glasses.

Over the Christmas and New Year Ive been doing the round trip of my relatives, loads of whom I havent seen since last Easter. Ive had a variety of different reactions: most of them have made some comment about my glasses. As I tend to forget that I have them on these days, this usually surprises me and makes me feel self-conscious. Some of the comments are fine, such as "I like your glasses" or "You didn't wear glasses before, did you?"; but some have loads of questions some of them can be a bit stupid - along the lines of "Do you really need to wear them?".

I have to say that a few people havent actually said anything (I assume that they are either unobservant or do they just accept that getting glasses is a part of the growing up process and doesnt deserve a comment.

One old aunt was quite rude about them and said that I was young so must be able to see properly and will damage my eyes if I keep wearing them.


Neil 03 Jan 2005, 10:29

What is it about someone wearing glasses for the first time that makes for so many comments I wonder. I went fulltime at the end of last year and was surprised at how many comments I got. And from people who knew I wore them too. What's the problem or perhaps more like why are people so interested? Why do people have to ask so many questions, is it really suich a big deal. Anyone else share this experience at all?


Dom 03 Jan 2005, 05:37

Charlie, I believe that if Anne wanted you to know, she would have told you the last time you asked her that question.


Charles 03 Jan 2005, 05:30

Anne, what about you ? Tell us...


Brian-16 25 Dec 2004, 21:12

Royboy-Yes I believe it is due to my asitgmatism and perhaps weak eye muscle.


royboy 25 Dec 2004, 19:48

sorry filthy

--- i should know how to spell keratoconus considering that i was plagued with it since age 12 and had a corneal graft in my right eye at age 20.

brian --- why r u not fully correctible in your right eye? --- is it due to your astigmatism? i mentioned my right eye prescription is -6.50 cyl -- i cant read close up or distance [even with the correction]. with a -10 cyl i kindve improve distance --- but due to the angle everything is very stretched and my eyes dont fuse --- -6.50 is the most i can tolerate. ive followed your postings about your prism and tri's would actually like to talk to u sometime [email royboy246@mac.com] --- contemplating tri's for my left eye [-8.00 x -1.25 cyl]


Brian-16 25 Dec 2004, 11:14

Royboy-I too am interested if Anne has 20/20 with all the cyl.I have -2.50 cyl in my right eye and have 20/25 vision in my right eye.My doctor (she) says that eye does not "focus"...

"Merry Christmas to one and all !


Filthy McNasty 25 Dec 2004, 11:14

"Keratoconus."


royboy 25 Dec 2004, 10:48

anne --- i am curious with such high astigmatism do glasses give u perfect vision? i have a minus 6.50 cyl in my right eye and am only able to see with a hard lens or 'softperm' [hard lens with soft skirt] i have a condition called 'keraticonis' --- curious if u may have the same condition. if u wish to write me i am at royboy246@mac.com


Charles 24 Dec 2004, 06:21

Anne, agree with Andrew.

But tell us why do you want to wear contacts ? How old are you ?

Thanks.


Andrew 23 Dec 2004, 13:59

Your request may prove tricky, Anne, as the high degree of astigmatism means that you would need toric lenses. In addition, the fit of contacts is much more important to the longer term health of your eyes. I would suggest a proper optician's assessment of what sort of contacts you require (base curve, power, and anything required for the astigmatism) before you attempt to shop around to get the best deal you can. Sorry it's not the answer you want to hear, but I hope it's still good advice.


Anne 23 Dec 2004, 12:33

My prescription is

R sphere +5.50 cyl-2.50 axis 172

L sphere +5.00 cyl -2.75 axis 3

What power contact lens should i order as i want to order them off the net

PLEASE HELP


leelee 15 Dec 2004, 06:44

Since the drug store glasses don't seem to be effecive, then it would point to the cylindar - I just got my prescription increased +.50 for distance and just -.25 for cyl and I was amazed at what a difference it made - I too was having trouble seeing very sharply for distance and close had gotten annoying. Stronger reading glasses were not at all usefull. So it sounds like its time for an exam.

Can you describe how the close material looks blurry? does it slip out of focus completely, or do the letters run together, or are there regions of blur? Or something else? just curious.

How long have you had these glasses? How old are you?


Brian-16 15 Dec 2004, 06:12

Jane-Not sure of your rx,but you might try going to a mall or drug store and buying a pair of reading glsses.Start with a pair you feel comfortable with.


John 15 Dec 2004, 06:06

Jane - It depends *how* hard it is to get your eyes to focus. It's OK if it takes a mental effort. But it shouldn't be a struggle. Reading glasses - probably +2-ish, +3 at the most - would pretty much take away any struggle to focus up close.

Unless the cylinder in your Rx has changed a LOT - which would make things in the distance very blurry - this would not account for difficulty focusing on things up close.

An eye test isn't a bad idea, but if you want to try something on your own, try on some reading glasses at a drug store or grocery store. If you "need" them, you'll find that they help. If they don't help, you don't need them. (You will only be able to see up close with them; things in the distance will be blurry.)


Julian 15 Dec 2004, 00:24

Jane: How long have you had those glasses? it could be that the cylinder component of your prescription needs updating; that could account for blur at all distances. Why not have an eye test and see?

Love and kisses, Jules.


Jane 14 Dec 2004, 17:19

I have been onthis website a few times reading lots of posts. I seem to get quite addicted to it. Anyway, I have a question about my vision. I have glasses (but don't wear them all the time). I think the prescription is: Left +.25, +.25 and Right: -.5, +(?).5. I know they aren't very strong, but I do have trouble seeing long distance with my right eye.

Anyway, my question is about close up work. When I read or do other close up stuff, I often find that it is really hard to make my eyes focus (whether I wear my glasses or not). I printed out some web-based reading charts from websites that sell reading glasses and found that when I don't concentrate on making my eyes focus, even the biggest lines (for prescriptions of +3.5 and +4.) are blurry. DOes this mean that I should be wearing reading glasses even stronger that these?


Nancy 06 Dec 2004, 06:44

Andrew:

My prescription has crept up a little, but not too much, about 1.5 dpt.


Filthy McNasty 25 Nov 2004, 14:57

The most interesting part of that post was the search terms you used (first link).


 25 Nov 2004, 14:35

http://umanitoba.fitdv.com/new/articles/article.html?artid=58


 25 Nov 2004, 14:34

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:XBCup237jmEJ:umanitoba.fitdv.com/new/articles/article.html%3Fartid%3D58+her+glasses+fogged+up+on+her&hl=en&ie=UTF-8


VisitBoy 24 Nov 2004, 14:14

See http://www.vnunet.com/News/1159455

"Prolonged PC use may cause glaucoma"


Brian-16 21 Nov 2004, 11:01

filo-Personally I have never done it,but may next time.My brother (age 14)is going for his annual eye exam this week and he is going to cheat because he says he wants to get an rx like mine.Right now he is not all that far off from my rx.He may be able to get away with it because come to think of it he is at least 3 months overdue for the exam.


filo 21 Nov 2004, 00:20

Does anyone get embarrassed when they're doing this? /When I've tried it I always feel like they know I'm bluffing. To keep saying you can't quite read it when you know you can is a real test.


Katy 20 Nov 2004, 15:25

Hi Andrew :-)

The test is called 'The +1.00 DS check'- from textbook: 'Visual acuity should drop about 4 lines when a +1.00 DS is placed over the final refraction. Visual acuity should drop to 6/12 or 6/18 in a patient with 6/5 in the final Rx. If the visual acuity only drops to 6/6 or 6/9, then it is likely that the subjective refraction is overminused and should be rechecked.' That's where they catch you! I don't think they would use another lens as they know exactly how far it should drop with the +1.


Andrew 20 Nov 2004, 13:10

Good to hear from you again, Nancy. Is it my memory, or is your plus Rx increasing and if so, why?

Katy, I've never heard of the blur test. How sure can you be that the lens will be a +1, rather than just the first plus lens that comes to hand?


Nancy 20 Nov 2004, 06:48

As an update since I have not posted in a while, my most recent scrips is +15 with a +4 add. My peripheral vision has deteriorated to 22deg. left and 18 deg. right. I am only corrected to around 20/50-60.

This past summer I learned braille. I am still in law school and mostly use a cctv system and screen magnifiers as most law texts are not in braille. I did get a guide dog over the summer so now really look like the blind girl with the thick glasses (usually dark glasses) and a dog.


Katy 19 Nov 2004, 10:58

Steven - if you say that the rings on the red look clearer they will give you more minus. Keep saying red until the green is clearer, and then say they are the same. They might also do a blur test, where they put a +1 lens in front of the correction and check that your acuity drops by 4 lines - so you have to make sure you don't read down any further than 4 lines from the bottom of the chart :-)


Brian- 18 Nov 2004, 11:36

Steven-Yes there is a way or two to do it.One is move your head back a little from the machine he puts in front of your eyes with all the lenses.Or just say you can not read the bottom or 20/20 line clearly.Also some doctors will give you the red / green test.I am not sure which one you tell them is clearer,but some folks on this site know and will proably read and respond to this post.


Luke 18 Nov 2004, 06:16

Andrew,

I totally disagree about 3rd, 4th generation phones. Perhaps they need to find a way to make the towers more visually appealing (or tolerable). But these systems have the potential to offer real benefits...not silly ones like watching a movie (one a 1-inch screen? Come now!), but big things like buying movie tickets while someone is pumping your gas when you're on your way to the theater, or, of course, helping induce more myopia in the young users of these devices...an effect that will be much enhanced if people have to look at them rather than holding them to their ears!


steven 17 Nov 2004, 17:21

i am a low myope with a prescription of L-0.5 -0.5 R -0.5 -0.25 and i am wanting to increase it by at least another -0.5 in each eye. is there any way to fool the optician or any things i things i can do at my eye exam to make me appear slightly more myopic?


Andrew 16 Nov 2004, 14:20

Totally off topic, but I cannot let Puffin's comment pass. The rapid rise in the number of phone masts in my area to cope with 3rd generation phones is alarming. The thought of even more for 4th generation phones is disturbing. I'm more than happy with my first, or is it second, generation phone which does what I need it to do - allow me to make phone calls when and where I need to. Perhaps in this matter, it would be a step forward to take a step backward, and return to the primary purpose of phones, and cut out all the gimmicks.

Sorry everyone, but I had to get that off my chest!


Puffin 16 Nov 2004, 10:33

Yes, there was something about this on the radio news last week, about the 3rd generation phones becoming more widely available. There were doubts whether people would really want to watch a film on such a tiny screen. Surely easier to get it on DVD? And it was pointed out that those who use the 3rd generation phones only did so because the phone calls were cheap.

I found myself idly wondering what the 4th generation phones would do, make toast, for instance? I remember the days when people had phones just to talk to one another. It seems like so long ago - I must be getting old.


squinty 16 Nov 2004, 08:43

I just got some marketing spam from Sprint announcing a new service where you can get TV on your cell phone. I can only imagine the visual impact of watching your cellphone screen for (how many hours a day does the typical westerner watch the boob tube?)

what do you all think the refractive impact of this will be?

"Doc, between the hallogen headlights and the cell phone tv i'm damn near blind!"


Phil 15 Nov 2004, 01:29

Great story Anne. What sort of bifocals do you have in your rimless frames?


hooked 14 Nov 2004, 23:10

Interesting story, Anne.

You should bear in mind:

Boys do like girls in glasses.


Anne 14 Nov 2004, 15:37

As I left the opticians I was about to take my new glasses off when my boy friend said remember what you were told you have to wear them ALL the time now I pulled a face and said ok I will try. As I walked out I could not believe the difference I could see so clear, we then went into a book shop wow I could read without having to get my pocket magnifying glass out. I had no problems getting used to wearing my bifocals and kept wearing them all the time to the delight of my boyfriend he liked my BIG blue eyes.

Two months ago I went for my check up as I was having problems reading again. The same thing was happing at the test more and more lens wear added this time I could see much further down the chart when the optician had finished he then gave me the reading chart to hold and started to add more lens .

When he had finished he said that my sight had got a lot worse and he had decided to try me with my full strength prescription.

R sphere +5.50 cyl-2.50 axis 172 ADD +3.00

L sphere +5.00 cyl -2.75 axis 3 ADD +3.00

I said I wanted to have rimless glasses this time he said that it would not be a good idea as they would be very thick I would not listen and insisted he have them made.

Two days later we went back to collect them I got a great shock when I first saw them they were so thick 10 mm at the out side edge and more in the centre but when I put them on it was as if I were in a different world I could see so much I turn to my boy friend expecting to say they were terrible but to my surprise he said WOW you look fab your eyes are so sexy.

So now I am a permanent bifocal wearer I am now thinking of trying trifocals for work , and getting a pair of rimless reading glasses for reading in bed


Anne 14 Nov 2004, 13:00

Phil.

you will have to wait for part two later tonight


Phil 14 Nov 2004, 12:57

ANNE, YOU ARE A RARE EXAMPLE OF A "YOUNG" BIFOCAL WEARER IN THE UK. wHAT IS YOUR RX? HOW DO YOU GET ON WITH LINED BIFOCALS?


Anne 14 Nov 2004, 09:41

I am 32 years old. I started wearing glasses when I was 8 years old but never wore them as much as I should have as I hated them.

Four years ago I met my present partner he was shocked at how little I could see.

He kept going on and on at me to go for an eye test he said the glasses that I wore where no good they were L1.50 R + 1.75 single vision .We had a big row in the car when I could not see to read the map. I said it was because of the bad light, but to shut him up I said I would let him take me to have a new eye test.

BIG SHOCK I sat looking at the letters or should I say the blur I could just see the second row down with my left eye more and more lens were added but could still not see all the rows of letters .Now he said he was going test my right eye so he covered the other eye. I can still remember the shock Total blur I could not even see the first letter more and even more lens were added then the stopped and asked me if I had had my right eye patched when I was young .no I said Ah you have a lazy right eye he replied I will tell you more when I have finished. He then gave me a hand held chart to read could only make out the top two rows more lens were added could then manage two more lines. I think we will stop now he said.

He said I was hyperopic had a astigmatism and presbyopia and needed new glasses and must wear them ALL the time it was all to much to take in at once so he said chose some new frames I he would get them ready for the next week I he would tell me more about my sight then. BUT I must not drive until I got my new glasses.

The following week I returned with my boy friend for support I was not looking forward to getting my new glasses. What a shock I got when I first saw them the lens were very much thicker than I had been wearing and they had a line through them BIFOCIALS at my age what a shock I got when they were placed on my nose I could see more than I could ever remember then he said read this book wow I said I can see it ( yes he said you are meant to) .I ask what the prescription was L +3.50 R +4.00 with an ADD of 1.50 I was told I would need to come back in 6 months time and to expect a further increase in my prescription.

I will tell you more later, time for tea in UK


Brian-16 14 Nov 2004, 05:18

Cass- The eye doctor would probably write it like this.. 20/30-3

Or if it was only 2 letters you missed it would be 20/30-2.

Your vision is not bad at all.How was your friends vision? How old are the both of you? I know,I am nosy...My right eye corrected is 20/25-1.While my left eye is 20/20.I do not think they make an eye chart big enough for me to see even the top letter..


Charles 14 Nov 2004, 03:10

Anne, if you want reading glasses, your prescription is

+8,50 cyl-2.50 axis 172

+8 cyl -2,75 axis 3

Quite strong prescription. How old are you ? What can of glasses do you wear ?


D-W-V 14 Nov 2004, 02:06

Anne:

The usual add for intermediate distance for trifocals would be half the near add, so for you it would be +1.50. That'll give clear vision up to 66.7 cm from your eyes.

Rather than getting trifocals, you could get a pair of bifocals made up specially for the computer. They'd have the intermediate prescription in the top part, and your reading (near) prescription in the lower segment. This gives the advantage of a really big area to see the screen through, much more than you'd get with any trifocal or progressive lens.

If you were ordering these bifocals online, you could specify:

R sphere +7.00 cyl-2.50 axis 172 ADD +1.50

L sphere +6.50 cyl -2.75 axis 3 ADD +1.50


Cass 13 Nov 2004, 19:14

Good point. The idea for the bet was mine though.


probably 20/40 13 Nov 2004, 17:46


Cass 13 Nov 2004, 17:33

Hi I'm new. My friend has had one of those eyecharts hanging in his room as a decoration forever. The other day he and I made a bet to see who's eyes were better. So we hung the chart on the fridge in the kitchen because it was the only way we could get 20 feet away. His sister was the judge while the other of us left the room. The test delt a double wammy first I lost $5 in a bet and second I found out I need glasses.

So would my eyes be considered. I could only see half the letters on the 20/30 line so am I considered 20/30 or 20/40?


Anne 13 Nov 2004, 16:36

specs4ever.

Thanks thats a great help.one more question.

I am having problems with seeing the computer i thought trifocals might help what ADD for midd distance and what ADD for close should I need.

Thanks


 13 Nov 2004, 14:27

Acuity and Prescription I got all filled up a while ago. I guess it got removed.


specs4ever 13 Nov 2004, 10:42

Anne, what you would need to order to give you your full reading correction in a pair of single vision glasses would be +8.50 x -2.50 x 172 and +8.00 x -2.75 x 3. Hope this helps.


Anne 13 Nov 2004, 09:55

Please can you help i want to order a pair of READING glasses online.

I wear bifocals all the time

My prescription is

R sphere +5.50 cyl-2.50 axis 172 ADD +3.00

L sphere +5.00 cyl -2.75 axis 3 ADD +3.00

What prescription should i order for just reading glasses


# 12 Nov 2004, 19:15

dear !, one thing you can try is once in a while when you are out, if you see someone who doesn't look bad but not awesome with glasses, point them out to her and tell her that her glasses look so much better on her than that persons.

And also, of course, compliment her all the time when she wears them, and be a little out of control sexy when you see her wearing them. Tell her how hot she is and show her how drawn you are to her - not over the top, but honestly. She might protest, but inside, it will give her more confidence. You will need to do this repeatedly.

Let us know if this works.


! 07 Nov 2004, 09:57

I just mentioned over on Vision about my girlfriend's shyness about wearing glasses. She got them over the summer, no particular reason that she's said but it was pretty obvious to me that she needed them. I don't know what her prescription is but she's wearing them for driving, ought to wear them for tv but won't and I'm pretty certain she struggles with recognising people in the distance and out shopping. She really looks great. How can I convince her that she does and help her with getting used to wearing them - she's convinced they make her look unattractive and 'impaired'. Frankly I think that's nuts but she's convinced about it.


Bart 06 Nov 2004, 11:09

Nita

if you or someone else can read 1 or 2 lines out of 10, you have an rx of about -5.


Naomi 04 Nov 2004, 12:21

Hi Tod, thanks for your post. I will. Naomi


Dave 02 Nov 2004, 15:21

It's fairly accurate for me.

Right sph +.25, cyl -1.75, 20/70

Left sph +.25, cyl -1.25, 20/40

I don't have to but I wear glasses all the time for comfort. My eyes are declining about -.25 of cylinder every 2 - 4 years.


Philosifer 02 Nov 2004, 14:37

This may be sort of interesting to some members of the ES community. It isn't precise of course; note that it says "IF myopia is the only problem" these numbers are indicative. Astigmatism can reduce acuity by a lot more.

http://lpf.com/source/rk/20something.html


Tod 31 Oct 2004, 14:36

Naomi, I would see another eye doctor, an opthomologist and make sure to make an appointment this week. Be sure to bring your new glasses as well as your older pair with you.

This is the best advice I can give you, here.


Naomi 31 Oct 2004, 14:13

This may sound like a stupid question but it is genuine. I wear -2 for both eyes but my eye dr wanted to give me a diopter stronger in one eye. Somehow she settled on this prescription. Now I'm having quite a bit of discomfort in that eye and I can tell I can't see so well through it. Fortunately the weaker eye is my non-dominant one so I guess the other is doing all the work but when I'm not wearing my glasses I'm getting what I'd describe as pain behind my eye. Could it be that its sinusitis as someone said or was the eye dr really right in their diagnosis? And if it is because one eye has a higher prescription than the other is ths what would be expected to happen? Thanks to anhone who can help me. I'll probably get a test anyway it's been so uncomfortable without my specs lately.


Val 30 Oct 2004, 11:53

Nita, here is another link, where you cand read a lot about visual acuity: http://www.mdsupport.org/library/acuity.html

Also, Wurm, our host, explained this very simple in the FAQ: http://eyescene.net/ES_FAQ.htm (Q.10)


Philosifer 30 Oct 2004, 10:38

Nita

Go to this site, and check it out for yourself

http://www.optometrist.com.au/eyetest.htm


nita 29 Oct 2004, 22:29

Thanks Antonio, I'm sure you're right! But does anyone have any clue what someone's prescription might be if they can only read the top letter/2nd letter on the chart?


antonio 25 Oct 2004, 09:21

hi Nita,

once again,

I think if a person sees only one or two letters of the eye chart or none of it at all, it's time he/she puts some lenses in front of these eyes

at least for special situations where

good eyesight is necessary, what do you think ?

best regards, antonio


antonio 25 Oct 2004, 07:13

Hi Nita,

about how to test eyes:

If it's your problem, do the following

or ask the person with possible eye problems to do the following:

Look at these lines without glasses and

measure at what distance from the screen they first become a little blurry for you without squinting.

If your eyes are both - 2.25,

the farest point of total sharpness for you should be at 44 cm = 17.5 inches.

Hide each of your eyes with a hand there and test it.

If you have to go nearer with your weaker eye to make it clear, then it is a little worse. -3.5 would mean it becomes sharp for this eye at about 28.5 cm distance from the screen, if you approach, that is at 11 inches.

Please tell us what you measure for both of your eyes, then we can estimate your prescription.

best regards, antonio


Nita 24 Oct 2004, 12:42

What are the prescriptions likely to be when someone can only read the first or second letter on the eyesight chart?

And for those people who can't even see that, how are their eyes tested and their prescription measured?

Thanks


 20 Oct 2004, 08:42

R Vitrum Spher. -0.25, Vitrum Cylindr. -0.25, Axis 030

L Vitrum Spher. -0.25, Vitrum Cylindr. -1.00, Axis 170

Age 42

Do I need to wear glasses?


Brian 14 Sep 2004, 10:10

Has anyone tried reading glasses in order to slow down their progression of myopia?? I was talking to my friend the other day that is an optometry student and was telling her how I got my first pair of glasses my senior year of high school and am 25 now and my prescription is -4.50 and -4.00... I wear contacts about 75% of the time and glasses the rest of the time. But my optometry friend said I should try reading glasses over my contacts while reading or using the computer. She said it should help my eyes from getting worse. I guess she got her first pair of glasses when she was real young and got reading glasses when she started college and her prescription has been stabilized in the -2 to -3 range for some time now. I was just wondering if anyone tried this and if so how it has worked for them.. She said it would probably be good to get a pair in the +1.00 range. Thanks.


D-W-V 29 Aug 2004, 00:37

maybe you saw an optometrist one time and an ophthalmologist the other time? Each flavour of eye doctor tends to write the cylinder portion of the prescription a different way, so that the axis is different by 90 degrees. (sign and sphere are also affected).

http://www.tedmontgomery.com/the_eye/glasses.html


Dan 28 Aug 2004, 20:21

I just got a new Rx -.75,-1.0@97 and -1.25,-1.25 @83. last time (different doctor) my axis was 180/180. what does this mean?


Tommy 25 Jul 2004, 20:16

Guest, I would think more like -6.25.


Guest 25 Jul 2004, 18:38

My friend - 23 years old - told me his contacts prescription is -5.75. Should I expect his glasses have the same prescription.


Pinkspecs 02 Jul 2004, 11:35

JUST STARTED A NEW YAHOO GROUP

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/plus_eyes/

PLEASE JOIN

REGARDS

WILLIAM


Plus Crazy 02 Jul 2004, 07:48

Sue,

well, you asked what's more didnt you?

The below one you posted is a kind of a description i want.

Thanks.

Keep posting.


Sue 30 Jun 2004, 08:54

Natalie.

Nice to hear from you. Yes was just 14 when first told that I had to start wearing glasses. Its the end of the world at that age isnt it. Please do no let it scare you, you will cope with any change. And to be honest, I would expect you to need stronger glasses at your next check up. Not trying to upset you, but that is usually the case with scripts like ours. Did not have any really big jumps, they just seem to have crept up at each appointment I had. My biggest upset was at age 19, was told would need reading add for my glasses. Had been having difficulty with close work. Started with R+1.50 L+1.00 and am now up to R+2.50 L+2.00. I wear progressive lenses, have found them very good. Have a separate pair of reading glasses for any really detailed close work. They are quite thick at R+10.00 L+9.00. You are lucky Natalie, being able to wear contacts, I had no joy with them. Try wearing your glasses when you go clubbing, get lots of compliments about mine. A lot of guys like us girls with big eyes. Had to experiment a lot with my eye make up as my glasses got stronger, have you found a problem with this. Sheila mentioned this, with her difference in magnification she must reach a fine balance. Think the golden rule, the more they magnify, the less makeup to use. Agree with you about Sheila, she sounds a real nice lady. Keep me posted about how you get on at your next check up.


Natalie 30 Jun 2004, 08:22

Hi Sue. I read your posting on the other thread.

So you started R+3.75 L+3.00 when you were 14 and now youre R+7.50 L+7.00 at 22 ?? Well this scares me just a little since I got my glasses at 12 (they were +3 also) and I'm younger than you. Did you have any big jumps in your prescription ?

I like contacts (coz I'm vain :)) but they aren't as comfortable to wear as when I first got them (less than a year ago). Sometimes they feel like sand in my eyes and I just have to take them out. But contacts are better for me when I play netball or go out clubbing.

I don't know why Sheila ever put up with that situation at all. Some guys can be real jerks.


Guest1 30 Jun 2004, 05:16

I have pondered why i am attracted to lovely spectacled ladies, its not a fetish, looks have never been an attraction, I don,t wear glasses myself, yet I constantly pondered why I feel so comfortable dating a lady wear glasses. I have concluded its away back in my childhood when my first recal of a ladies face was a warm friendly spectacled one, so I suppose I associate glasses worn by a lady as a friendly kind face, my second reason ladies who are very long or very short sighted have the most beautiful eyes, please don,t take my word for this ask any optician, and I relate lovely eyes to a lovely personality.I wonder if any other posters have reasoned why glasses worn by a lady are a focal point for being attracted to the lady. So to all you lovely spectacled wearing ladies there are guys who admire you for who you are, and your glasses bring back happy childhood memories.


Guest1 30 Jun 2004, 05:04


Sue 30 Jun 2004, 03:59

Plus Crazy. What more can I tell you about them ?


Jan 30 Jun 2004, 03:20

Plus Crazy. Not really a high plus, only R+2.50 L+2.75. Only really started wearing them full time when my youngest girl was told she would need to wear glasses. At least, if her mum wore them, thought it would help her. I'm 26 and have had glasses since 19 after suffering from eyestrain and headaches.


Plus Crazy 30 Jun 2004, 02:54

Hi Sue,

Thanks for the update. Please update us more about them.

I'll post again later!


Sue 30 Jun 2004, 02:44

Plus Crazy. Sorry should have addressed this post to yourself as well.


Sue 30 Jun 2004, 02:43

Natalie, Hi, You and I are lucky our boyfriends like us in glasses. Have you read the thread from Sheila, it made very interesting reading. I really felt for the lady, having a perscription like hers, and being told to leave them off. I'm fairly high plus like yourself. Have posted in another thread but if you didn't see it, it is

R+7.50 Add +2.50 L+7.00 Add +2.00.

Sounds like you need an update in your glasses, you appear to be suffering all the usual signs. You say your lenses are thick, my perscription is quite a bit stronger than yours, and I wear high index lenses, they really are very good. Tried contacts, but could not get on with them. Quite to wear glasses full time, have about 6 pairs I swap between, depending on mood/clothes


Natalie 30 Jun 2004, 01:44

This sure is a strange site, but pretty cool too I think. Didnt know so many guys got off on girls wearing glasses but who's complaining :)

So my prescription is +5.5 left and +6.0 right, but I need to go to the optometrist soonish coz I'm gettin headaches when I read and watch tv.

Mostly I wear my glasses, which look good on me (so everyone says) and because my boyfriend doesn't mind. But I think the lenses are too thick so I have contacts for when I go out.


Plus Crazy 26 Jun 2004, 23:41

Hello guts & girls,

Its nice to see some + glasses wearers around. Ladies, please keep updating about your life with +glasses as i'm interested in studying how it affects the life style of a person.

Please mention your age as well.

Bye, with hopes that you'll respond to this post.


Susanne A 26 Jun 2004, 07:21

Hi+Girl:

I also wear very high + lenses, due to congenital cataracts. E-mail me at susanneablondi at hotmail dot com.


Phoebe 25 Jun 2004, 10:50

I'm a new wearer as of last week (and new to ths site). I have a prescription of -1.25 with -0.75 astigmatism left and -1.50 with -0.25 astigmatism right. Optician was a bit vague and said wear glasses when I feel I need them but definately when driving (apparrently I'm over the legal minimum for distance vision when driving - I'm going to start driving lessons soon). I know they're not that strong but they've made a difference. I decided to go 'full-time' as I loved the clarity. I can manage ok without glasses I just prefer to wear them all the time.

One thing I did notice was that the lenses looked stronger than I thought they would be - things looked quite small looking through them at arm length. The stretching and squashing effect the lenses have on things as you turn them is quite interesting - I presume that's caused by the astigmatism correction.


Vic 24 Jun 2004, 22:44

Yep Gran wears glasses not sure of the RX she wears bifocals but it would be pretty high I think all my family wears glasses except my brother


Guest 24 Jun 2004, 21:10

Vic, Hi long time no post. Does your Gran wear glasses, and if so what's the Rx.?


Vic 24 Jun 2004, 19:53

As my gran said glasses are coming back in fashion ;p


Tod 24 Jun 2004, 15:14

Clare, with all the various attractive frames available, yes it is becoming more desireable. More celebs ect. are wearing their's and people would like to take a break from contacts while enjoying clear vision.


Clare 24 Jun 2004, 14:44

I'm noticing many more low minus prescriptions, and full time at that. When I say low minus I mean even less than my -2.50. Wonder why that is. Wouldn't think they need them. Hey you guys, does that mean it's becoming an even more desirable attribute?? :)))


Phoropter 22 Jun 2004, 13:30

JJ: You can try Proclear Torics made by Coopervision or Biomedic Toric. I've had fairly good success with these on patient's with drier eyes.


 21 Jun 2004, 18:34

I mean

It reads:

It reads:

OD. Cil +27,75 Cil -1,75 Eix 180* pris 14* bs ext

OE. Cil +28,50 Cil -2,00 Eix 17* pris 14* bs ext.

Sorry


4eyes 21 Jun 2004, 18:31

Recently I got prescription with "Top" & "Bottom" numbers.

Today my Ped Oph. decided to give a glasses for reading only instead of bifocals, since I can hardly control my eyes movements with them.

It reads:

OD. Cil +27,75 Cil -1,75 Eix 180* pris 14* bs ext

OE. Cil =28,50 Cil -2,00 Eix 17* pris 14* bs ext.

He says since I can't tolerate bifocal I'll have to use them at school and to use computer. So I will have to wear a glasses for normal use and another to read.

Have anybody listen something like that?

Thank you.


Vic 19 Jun 2004, 18:43

Just an observation there is some lady at my gym who has the thickest lenses ive ever seen im pretty sure they are minus but wow


Tod 19 Jun 2004, 12:53

My Rx in my glasses was too strong for my right eye. My glasses are bifocials but my contacts are for monovision so as I wont need reading glasses when wearing them. They put my contact lens Rx in my glasses. The Dummies! I could actually read through the upper segment of my left eye and the lower reader segment for that eye was way too strong.

With hyreropia, your contact lens Rx will be stronger than for eyeglasses. With myopia, its just the opposite.


guest#8 17 Jun 2004, 22:57

jj: Like you i have tried many different brands of torics. I have had a pretty good outcome with sunsoft multiples div.2 lenses. my cylinder correction is -3.75 and -4.00. I do still have the problem of having to turn the lenses especially in my right eye to keep it in focus, but it's the best i've tried so far..good luck


Tod 17 Jun 2004, 22:08

JJ, you may want to consider RGP lenses. They do take a while to get used to but they offer astagmats excellent correction. One draw back is after switching back to glasses for a time, they do require a break in period all over again.


JJ 17 Jun 2004, 21:50

Phoropter: I tried three different brands of Toric CL's. Softlens (felt too thick), UltraFlex and Acuvue Toric. The Acuvue's were the most comfortable but the vision in my left eye was blurry. Which brand of toric CLs do you find is better for vision acuity and dry eyes?


Phoropter 17 Jun 2004, 07:20

JJ: You have too much astigmatism in your left eye for aspheric contacts to mask. How many different brands of toric lenses have you tried? Sometimes different lens materials can make a significant difference in comfort.


me 12 Jun 2004, 09:40

interesting ihave symptoms close to those described by posh.

When i went to geteyes tested about a year ago i saw they had written down fromm the machine cylinder off 0.25 in one eye and and 0.5 in the other

got a feeling it has got worse in one of my eyes so i might pay a visit to the opticians. dont know though


JJ 10 Jun 2004, 08:19

DelDoc--

My eyeglass RX is

OD -4.25 -.75 x 85

OS -3.00 -2.00 x 110

I currently have toric soft contact lenses but would aspheric contact lenses work in both eyes? I am not happy with toric contacts I have dry eyes and have to blink often to keep my vision in focus and only seem to keep one eye in focus at a time.


JJ 09 Jun 2004, 19:18

DelDoc: My orginial prescription for eyeglasses is from an ophthalmologist but my contact fitting is with an optometrist. Settled on UltraFlex Toric soft contacts. OS -3.00 -1.75 x 110, OD -4.00 -0.75 x 80. I was hoping for a regular contact in the right eye but the highest the Dr. would try was -4.25 and my distance vision was still blurry. What is the difference between an aspheric and toric lens?


Tod 07 Jun 2004, 22:19

I am 40+ and wear monovision correction. my reading eye has the astigmatism. My CL Rx is: OD +3.50 DS +1.25 (both aspheric) I have worn plus lenses for years.


DelDoc 07 Jun 2004, 17:53

Tod--

I see the question mark in your post, but I'm not sure what your question is. Without knowing your age or your prescription history, I don't know how to respond exactly, other than stating that everything you described seems perfectly plausible and not uncommon.


Tod 05 Jun 2004, 08:55

DelDoc, my old Rx had me in a toric lens on my left eye and spheric lens on my rifht eye. But now my new Rx is for aspheric lenses on both eyes with a slightly stronger power on my left. ?


DelDoc 05 Jun 2004, 08:41

JJ--

Assuming that you're talking about soft lenses, I'd start with a -4.25 spherical lens, possibly an aspheric design to mask the uncorrected astigmatism. Depending on the patient's age and sensitivity to blur, the power may need to be increased to -4.50 or a soft toric lens may be necessary to achieve 20/20 acuity.

With the spectacle prescription written in plus cylinder form, is the patient seeing an ophthalmologist for the contact lens fitting?


JJ 03 Jun 2004, 21:25

Question: With a -5.00 +0.75x175 RX what strength Spherical contacts would be prescribed? -4, -4.25, -4.5 or -4.75? Would it be better to prescribe toric contacts?


DelDoc 03 Jun 2004, 18:14

Brian--

Here's a decent rule of thumb for perfectly SPHERICAL corrections: Between plano and 4 diopters, there is no difference between spectacle power and contact lens power. Between 4 and 6 diopters, the contact lens power is 0.25 diopter less minus (or more plus) than the spectacle power. Between 6 and 8 diopters, the contact lens power is 0.50 diopter less minus (or more plus) than the spectacle power. Between 8 and 10 diopters, the contact lens power is 0.75 or 1.00 diopter less minus (or more plus) than the spectacle power.


Brian 02 Jun 2004, 19:54

Does anyone know of a website that converts how a contact lenses prescription compares to a glasses prescription once you start going into higher diopters over -3.00 and -4.00. I think awhile back there was a link posted that showed how focal distances differ between glasses and contact prescriptions, so if anyone knows the equation or the link could you post it, I'd be interested to read it.. Thanks..


Hollie 27 May 2004, 05:31

Are you sure you have got the rx right? Mine aren't that thick, and I have -3 sphere and -1 cylinder, and they certainly aren't flat at the front. It seems odd they would make flat lenses for such a low rx, they shouldn't look strong at all at this prescription I don't think. I have certainly never had anyone tell me mine look strong.

Maybe you could ask your optician about this?

Hollie


New Wearer 27 May 2004, 02:59

I posted on May10, regarding my new glasses.I have a question. Why are my lenses almost completely flat on the front, like I see on glasses of much higher Rx. A friend said the optician may have used this tpye of lens in anticipation of my Rx. getting quite strong in the future, and it would be easier to increase the Rx.when I'm used to this lens type.These lenses make my Rx. look alot stronger than it is, and I think they are thicker too. Is this something that is common with a first Rx.?Friends have ask how come they look so strong,when this is your first pair. They are both-.25 with-.75 cyl.


Steve 25 May 2004, 12:50

Posh & others

I just got my first pair of specs today and have a similar prescription to yours. Right eye -0.75 cyl @180 and Left eye -0.25D -0.50@180. When I put the specs on it takes a while until the slight blur goes away. The optician did say that it may take a while to adjust to lenses and that once adjusted vision may seem slightly poorer without glasses. Is this the case and if so is it because eyes are relaxed????


Dave 25 May 2004, 00:33

OD (right) +0.25 -1.75 x 162

OS (left) +0.25 -1.25 x 023

With this prescription I have good corrected vision in both eyes. I found that it's very difficult to take them off because there is always a few minutes of tug of war in my eyes trying to focus. Eventually it settles down and I can go bare eyed without much difficulty. I prefer to leave them on as much as possible to avoid the discomfort and for the better sight.

I first got glasses in my early 20's with astigmatism of -0.50 and -0.25 I wore them for driving and reading. Over the last 20 years the numbers have bounced around a bit as they crept upwards. I don't think how much I wore my glasses made a difference but I'll never know.


New Wearer 24 May 2004, 23:42

posh, The reason for blurring sometimes, and not at others, is due to the strain your eyes are going thru.Is there a pattern, such as after close work , or reading, or after a long day?


posh 24 May 2004, 10:29

prof,

so why is the blur worse on som days and not noticeable on others


Bespectacled Professor 24 May 2004, 10:06

Posh,

Your eyes don't get weaker if you wear glasses or don't wear them. For a prescription like yours, you won't notice a great deal of difference with them on and with them off. It will make things in the distance a bit sharper and take some strain off your eyes.

Once you start getting into the -2.0 to -2.5, the contrast between your vision without glasses and vision with them gets quite noticeable. A lot of people at that point choose to wear them all the time because 1) they are need to use them for so many activities that they are wearing them most of the time anyway and 2) they don't want to put up with the increasing blur. Still, some people choose to wear them part-time. Once past -3.0, it's pretty difficult to go without wearing glasses, so the vast majority of people with that prescription are fulltime wearers.

You certainly can wear these glasses all the time. Fulltime use won't hurt your eyes.


Bespectacled Professor 24 May 2004, 09:59

Posh,

With a prescription like yours, you'd want to wear them for driving, movies, watching TV. But, for most other activities, you'll do just fine.


posh 24 May 2004, 09:58

oops! i forgot to say, my eye doc said to wear them when needed, but as I previously will my eyes adapt so that I need full time wear with a weak prescription


posh 24 May 2004, 09:56

The thing is though that sometimes my vision seems fine and at others more blurred. My vision is at its worst when looking at white text on black background or fairly bright LED clock faces on videos etc. Should I wear glasses fulltime when i collect them.


New Wearer 23 May 2004, 12:30

Posh, Yes it is common to get glasses with a low Rx. See my earlier posts on this thread, mine are only slightly stronger than yours. Were you told to wear them full time?


posh 23 May 2004, 11:10

My eye doc just prescribed me lenses for astigmatism and no other vision problem. Very Weak though. -0.5 @ 180 both eyes. I had noticed slight blurring in one direction prior to getting test. Is it usual to be givens specs for such a weak prescription


Flash 21 May 2004, 20:10

Electra, if you don't mind my asking, how old are you?

Thanks


Dave 18 May 2004, 20:29

I meant to say also that I don't have the new glasses yet. I'm trying to find out if a frame that I liked comes in a wider size.


Dave 18 May 2004, 20:26

New prescription today:

OD (right) +.25 -1.75 x 162

OS (left) +.25 -1.25 x 023

Here's what I remember from my last Rx just over 2 years ago.

OD +.75 -2.0 x ?

OS +.50 -1.0 x ?

I wore trial lenses for a few minutes and they were very clear. When I compared them to my old glasses it was very noticable at a distance but not much close up.


Tod 17 May 2004, 20:43

New Wearer, my firtr Rx was +.05 anf +.075 its now +2.50 ans +1.75 with reading add but my early Rx's didn't have the astigmatism correction. That came a few years later. If i turned my head really quickl it was like the floor and ceiling would touch. and for about a week i was afraid to walk down but not up stairs or step off a curb. I wear my glasses all of the time except when wearing contacts which is not often. I can see without them but not enough to be fully functional. I cant read or see well enough in the distance because that too is blurry.


New Wearer 17 May 2004, 19:58

Tod, Thanks for the info. Havm't experienced the floor meeting the ceiling thing, but have the stepping off into space. What was your first Rx., and what is it now?Can you function without your glasses?


New Wearer 17 May 2004, 19:49

Was talking to a friend that started out with a Rx. similer to mine. She said the doctor gave her drops to put in her eyes for about a week, to help her get used to her new glasses.Before using the drops she could see quite well without the glasses, but the drops severely blurred her vision, unless she wore the glasses.After a week of the drops and full time wear of the glasses, she was unable to see anything without the glasses. So although the drops helped her adjust to the new glasses, they also made her totally dependent on them.Has anyone else experienced this?


Tod 15 May 2004, 16:28

New wearer, yes astigmatism correction does take a while to get used to. First time I was corrected for this the Dr. told me to wear them 100% of the time. And still at times the floor looked like rose up to meet the ceiling and stepping off a curb was like steping off into space. I was afraid to drive then too. It can take a week or longer to get used to things. Its your brain that is being reprogramed to see things as they really are.


New Wearer 15 May 2004, 12:37

Went back to the Dr. as I thought my prescription may be too strong. He left it as it was but now added a +1.50 for close work. So I've gone from no glasses to astimmatism correction, to bifocals in two weeks. How common is this for someone 37 years old? I've been wearing the astigmatism glasses almost full time tryig to get used to them, and use the bifocals for reading and computer.I can use the astigmatism glasses for the computer work but have to get much closer to the screen to see it clearly. The Dr. said astigmatism corrections are sometimes hard to get used to. Has anyone here had this difficulty?


Bespectacled Professor 12 May 2004, 06:04

New Wearer,

Part of the answer to your question is how old you are. If you are in your 20s/30s, then your prescription will likely not change that much. If you are in your teens, you could see significant changes in your myopia and astigmatism by next year.

Your prescription, even taking into account the astigmatism, is relatively weak, so you should wear them when they feel comfortable. Of course, given your prescription and being astigmatic, you will need them for driving, watching movies and sporting and for other activities that you need them for a distance, but also for reading/computer work. Depending on your job, that could be a majority of the day. If so, you will probably end up wearing your glasses all the time.


New Wearer 12 May 2004, 01:27

What can anyone tell me of their experiences with astigmatism.Does it increase to stronger lenses, as myopia does?Do doctors overcorrect for it so you grow into it?My corrected vison seem slightly clearer with each eye indivually, than with both eyes. Will this change as I get used to the glasses?Is this a fairly strong Rx for my first?Probably needed correction for a number of years. I think the Dr. said my vison is 20/70 uncorrected. I was surprised at the thickness of the lenses.


New Wearer 10 May 2004, 00:18

Just started wearing glasses OD-.25(-.75 CYL@175 OS-.25(-.75 CYL@165. For night driving they seem perfect, but in daylight almost seen too strong. Also are great for computer work, but have experimented with online eye tests, and found.Corrected vison is 20/20 each eye, and uncorrected is 20/50 each. However if I do a few hours of close work wearing the glasses,and do the test ,uncorrected vison is 20/200 each eye.Is this a sign that my Rx. will change in a few months, and if so about how much?Anybody else experience this?


Brian 08 May 2004, 10:56

I went for an eye exam yesterday and I don't need a prism correction as of yet. My eye doctor said its best to go without the correction until its fully needed because once I get the correction it will be hard to wear contacts.. He said my exotopia(I believe thats what its called).. Its obviously still present but he said my brain seems to be doing a fairly good job of making the two images one.. He said any stain or ability to focus might have been caused by the need or stronger glasses more than the exotopia.. My prescription increased -0.50 in each eye, i'm now -4.50 and -4.00.. I should have my new glasses by next week..


Electra 07 May 2004, 13:25

Yes, I come from a 20/20 family, at least prior to middle age.

Why my fetish then? Well I get asked that a lot. To be perfectly honest, I don't see the connection. There are plenty of things I look for in a man that I don't have myself!

I can't answer your question anyway, don't know. Spent a lifetime and a website trying to figure that out!


D-W-V 07 May 2004, 13:03

with an add of 1.75, things beyond about 57 cm (22.5") will become blurred. Measure the distance to your computer screen, expressed in meters, and take the reciprocal of it. That'll give you the maximum add in diopters with which you'll be able to see the monitor clearly, using no accomadation.


Bespectacled Professor 07 May 2004, 13:03

Electra,

How was the vision among people in your immediate family?

And, why do you suppose that you have a fetish about men who wear glasses?


Electra 07 May 2004, 13:00

You know, I often feel like a total fraud even being a 20/20 here, but at last I have something useful to offer.

I'm 42 years old. I learned to read in Kindergarten and I've been a bookworm ever since. 3 years of college. For 20 years I've done detailed artwork for a living. For the past ten years that's included a computer, and these days I spend 12 hours a day in front of a computer screen, at work and at home.

None of this has affected my eyesight. Use all that anecdotally at your whim!


DelDoc 07 May 2004, 11:11

guest--

Please post a link to research in a peer-reviewed journal that supports your claim that computer use worsens vision. I'm interested in reading it.


Pamela 07 May 2004, 03:04

I tried putting my mum's reading glasses, which are +1.75, to my eyes over my glasses but all I saw was a blur.


D-W-V 07 May 2004, 02:55

Pamela: if it does, and if the damage comes from the strain of accomodation, then reading glasses or computer glasses should reduce that strain and therefore the damage. Talk to your optometrist/ophthalmologist or forge an add of +1 to 2 or so to your prescription. ;) 1.5 should be about right for the computer with almost no accomodation.


Pamela 07 May 2004, 02:10

Too bad :(


guest,  07 May 2004, 01:40

Pamela,yes it does


 06 May 2004, 17:54

this was so predictable


George1968 06 May 2004, 17:44

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, the new prescription is:

-3.25 OS, -3.0 OD. The world has another fulltime glasses wearer.

Pisser.


george1986 05 May 2004, 18:51

Let me preface this post by saying that I adhere to Clare's position about glasses -- resist wearing them as long as you can.

I'm myopic. My prescription is -2.75 OS, -2.25 OD. I first got glasses in high school when I went to get my license. I believe my original prescription was -1.00 in both eyes. My eyes got slightly worse each year until the end of college (about -2.25). Since high school, I wear glasses for driving, for watching movies and TV and little else.

I teach, and I admit that I don't see all my student faces clearly, but I've never thought of that as a serious problem.

About 6 months ago, my wife (who doesn't wear glasses) got mad when I called out to someone at a get-together, and it was the wrong person. Since then, she has been nagging me to wear my glasses fulltime, saying she is tired of seeing me squint, and missing things because I can't see them. And, when she gets on an issue, she stays with it.

She's probably right about my wearing glasses all the time, but I shudder at the thought. I'm not just comfortable wearing them fulltime.

I pretty much dug in my heels about this one. I asked my wife what she would think about my looks if I wore glasses all the time. She replied that she married me "for better or worse" (which was a real endorsement!). I told her that I would have to wear glasses the rest of our marriage as I had tried and failed to adjust to contacts. I got "better or worse" again. I finally argued that I can make do bare-eyed. She retorted that I was just kidding myself. She makes it sound as if I commonly walk into doors.

Anyway, I offered this -- if, after my next eye doctor appointment, my prescription became -3.00 or worse in both eyes, that I would relent and wear my glasses all the time. If not, she would quit nagging me.

The next morning, she made an eye doctor's appointment for me. Tomorrow is the day of reckoning. I'm nervous. I haven't had a checkup in about 3 years. I haven't noticed any change in my vision (it's been pretty stable since college -- I'm 36). But, it'll be just my luck. There's a real chance that by this time tomorrow, I'll be wearing glasses all the time for the rest of my life. Plus, there's a wedding this weekend with a lot of close friends. Talk about "coming out."

I think I'm going to have nightmares tonight :(


Pamela 05 May 2004, 02:45

Hello, does anyone think that reading for long periods of time and spending a whole in front of a computer worsen one's vision. I'm highly myopic : -10 in both eyes.


Electra 26 Apr 2004, 06:19

Phoropter: Well congratulations, and glad you're in it for the long haul, this place becomes like home after a while.


Phoropter 23 Apr 2004, 16:15

Electra: My wife and I are having our first baby really soon so I've had to limit my online time but I will do my best to try and keep up.

LongTimeLurker: The simple answer is yes to your question about ODs using finger counting and hand motion as measurement of acuity. There are a few ODs who would consider this a sin (low vision ODs and those working in a University/academic setting), but most of us do it due to lack of time and equipment. These poor techniques are used to access vision to get a "ballpark" idea.

You are correct that 20/400 is the worst vision on a Snellen chart, but I guess if someone can't see the "E", one could have then get up out of the chair and then measure the distace at which they can see it. For example, if they could see the "E" at 10 feet their vision would be 10/400 (test distance / letter size) or the equivalent to 20/800, but honestly I'm too lazy to do this.


Electra 23 Apr 2004, 04:28

Yes, I hope he comes back too. He sets things straight when we get wildly innacurate without once ever being condescending. Sometimes I'll read a comment here that strikes me as technically wrong, but I don't feel I have any right/credentials to challenge it. It's so nice to have a professional around to sort it out.


 22 Apr 2004, 22:24

Phoropter: Where have you been? we miss you


LongTimeLurker 22 Apr 2004, 22:10

While this may seem an elementary question to some, after reading one of Electra's links, I hope some of the higher myopes on this board will answer this:

assuming an uncorrected visual acuity of 20/400 or worse (I think that's what the article said) how is vision tested? is it true that the good old Snellen chart is only good until around 20/400? Do OD's really make use of something as unscientific and imprecise sounding as counting fingers? if so, has anyone any idea about the correlations between finger counting/hand waving ability and level of myopia? any takers?


Electra 21 Apr 2004, 09:51

Well here's the thing guys, they can't seem to make their minds up. In one breath they say that over-correction does nothing, then we get comments like these (about eating minus) and how terrible it is to go over. Surely the solution is not to go over or under but get it right? Makes you wonder sometimes how much guesswork is involved.


Christy 20 Apr 2004, 00:09

I liked the bit that said - We all know that myopes like to "eat minus".


Daffy 19 Apr 2004, 16:29

Electra...that was good reading...I have the same treatment done. I always went out 'under-corrected', and always felt it the moment the glasses went on. And it remained that way. Distance was always not as clear as it could be. So that's when I took matters in my own hands and re-corrected the Rx. The doc would give me the undercorrected minus, the proper cylinder and axis, and away I went to the photocopier. I've never felt or seen better.

One thing that wasn't mentioned in that article was why he thought overcorrection was wrong. I would have like to know that. I'll see if I can contact him somehow.


Electra 19 Apr 2004, 08:49

I found this interesting:

http://www.westol.com/pfkod/doctors/prevent.html


Tod 17 Apr 2004, 18:05

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/corrective_contacts020412.html


Electra 17 Apr 2004, 13:11

bareyed: For lots of reasons I won't take you up on that (not wasting the money, not putting things in my eyes, dislike blur intently!) and while I agree that OTC readers are not exactly prescision opticals, it's a good enough guide for me to know I wouldn't like it. I think I may still be missing your point.


bareyed 17 Apr 2004, 12:39

Electra: I tried OTC readers, and the blur with these is quite different than that of CL. Could be related to the poor lens quality.

Perhaps you should try CL and see for yourself. (-four yourself.)

Not sure I like the blur,but it is very telling on what myopic people experience.


Electra 17 Apr 2004, 12:26

bareyed: I'm still not sure what you mean! OK, I have here some cheap OTC readers +3. If I put them on, and I'm in a small room, the stuff over the other side of the room is blurred. There's a green and white cylinder, a blue.....thing, and a.......well, there's something light, or several somethings, or is it a...I have no idea. Nothing has any writing on it.........No, I wouldn't put up with that. I'm sure I could cope, but what's the point? I guess my point being that I see no benefit in tolerating it. When I look at something I like to know what it is. Do you enjoy blur then? Is that what you are saying?


bareyed 17 Apr 2004, 12:04

... I am still amazed that people who truly need glasses, and therefore have many opportunities and occasions of a bare eye practice feel so dependent on their glasses.


bareyed 17 Apr 2004, 12:02

This morning I have made myself myopic at the -4.5 level from the time I woke up until around noon. I took a shower, fixed breakfast, cleaned the house and did all the daily chores with the blur. I became so used to the blur that I hardly noticed it at noon time. Making out what distant spots were was a bit of a challenge, but not too difficult.

Later on, I had to take the CL off since I had to drive, and did not want to be seen with glasses. I do not think I would have had any problems in being out of home being at this level of myopia. (I did that yesterday, and was even able to just barely recognize two friends in the street.)

I am still amazed


Tod 16 Apr 2004, 10:29

(meant to type) see the lenses on those beautiful myopic eyes of hers.


Tod 16 Apr 2004, 10:15

I went to my bank this morning. There is a very cute teller there named Jamie L. (I wont give her last name). I saw her a few weeks ago wearing plastic frame glasses with a fairly strong Rx. maybe -5.5. to -6.0 Lately she has been at the bank without glasses on. So today while depositing a check, I said to her: Excuse me, but you wear contact lens, right? She replyed "yes I do". I said, "Do you know of a good eye doctor for them. My Dr. messed me up on my Rx with them (which is true) and I need to see another. She said, "Oh, I go to my cousin. He is an eye doctor (same last name as hers) in Middletown. (a city about 24 miles from me) I said, "hey that must be great to have a cousin of yours as your eye Dr. She replied, "yeah it is"

PS: on top of being very qute as I said, She has these enormous bluish- green eyes, like looking at tropical seas. So typical of medium to high myopes having large eyes. When she turned her head at a certain angle I could actually see the lenses those beautiful myopic eyes of hers. Mmmm!


Electra 16 Apr 2004, 10:05

For some reason that link doesn't work, try this:

http://library.thinkquest.org/C005949/fun/eyechart.htm?tqskip1=1


Electra 16 Apr 2004, 10:03

On-line eye exam: http://library.thinkquest.org/C005949/fun/eyechart.htm


bareyed 16 Apr 2004, 09:45

it would be nice if there was thread dedicated to bare eyed experiences, either natural or with CL


 16 Apr 2004, 09:40

Electra: Since I had 20/20 vision all my life, I did not think I would tolerate the blur, especially at this level.

I have a friend who is -4.5 in both eyes. This friend could not even sleep well if the glasses did not rest on the nite table, within a hand's reach, procmlaiming: "I feel naked without them."


bareyed 16 Apr 2004, 09:25

I do not normally wear glasses. My natural perscription is something like -0.25 in the right eye and about -0.50 in the left eye. There is also a bit of additional negative astigmatism in both eyes. I reckon that with these -3.75 CL I am about -4.25 in my right eye and -4.5 in my left eye.


Electra 16 Apr 2004, 07:15

I'm going to have to change my computer screen habits later on, and how. Although it depends what I'm doing. For artwork I tend to sit back to avoid pixelation, but for text I'm on top of it. Currently I'm 6" from the screen, level with it. Bad, bad, bad.

bareyed: I've commented on blur-intolerance before and I think it plays a major part, because indivudual's tolerances vary so much. Because I've had good vision all my life I have roughly zero blur-tolerance. One diopter out would drive me to distraction. Nothing short of a gun would persuade me to walk down a street in a blur. Some people find it fun, others find it tolerable. I would find it unbearably annoying.


Philosifer 16 Apr 2004, 05:23

Re Electra's post of April 14 ( the problem of personal video screens in some current versions of passenger aircraft) I have found one solution is to take my computer glasses with me, instead of leaving them on the desktop at home. They are +1.5 single-vision readers (as opposed to the 2.5 add in my regular progressive glasses) and they work just fine at the typical focal distance of the seat back ahead.

In fact, I am surprised that we have not had more discussion on ES around the use of dedicated computer specs. Comfortably focussing on a desktop monitor must be a hugely more common problem these days than watching an in-flight movie ? Not everybody can arrange their chair and desk so that they look down on the monitor, as required for comfortable vision through trifocals or progressives ?


Reluctant GWG 16 Apr 2004, 03:43

To Bareyed,

P.S. Another thought - do you just do GOC and have normal vision otherwise? If you really can still read quite a lot of distant writing with these contacts then maybe you're slightly hyperopic. Have you had an eyetest recently?


Reluctant GWG 16 Apr 2004, 03:41

I can remember when I was about that prescription (-3.75) and I used to cope fine(ish) without wearing glasses. They certainly would have helped me to perform all sorts of tasks but that doesn't mean I couldn't function without them. I really think it's down to an individual's feelings about how much blur they'll accept (although for me it wasn't about accepting blur but about rejecting glasses and ludicrously trying to pretend I didn't need them).

Even now though, with a prescription of about -5, I can still go to the bathroom without glasses and wander around the house. I feel more comfortable and relaxed with them on (I finally got over the whole spectophobia and learned to love them) but I could do things like cook dinner without them... although if I was making a salad or something there might be a few worms and flies getting in there that I didn't see to wash off so it's best not to!


bareyed 16 Apr 2004, 03:25

Just got a pair of +3.75 dailywear CLs, and have been with these for 14 hours or so now.

I expected a much greater deal of blur, since these correspond to -4.25 glasses. I have a matching -4.25 glasses, which I used occasionally, but I was able to move around, walk the streets, and even go to an optic store to have a screw tightened.

I even met two people I know on the street, and I was able to recognize them, mostly by the way they dress and look, and less by their facial features which were a bit blurry.

I was also suprised to be able to see the larger street signs. It is really a mystery to me why people in this perscription range seem so utterly dependent on their glasses.

It is indeed a bit uncomfortable to walk without correction, but nothing that could not be tolerated. It is even possible (but not very smart) to venture driving at daytime with such an acuity...

So, what's the big deal? Why is it that almost all people in this perscription range are so strongly compelled to put on their glasses just as they get out bed, would not take them off except for cleaning them, and would not dare leaving the house or even going to the bathroom without them?


Mike 15 Apr 2004, 19:08

Daisy, no one says you'd have to waer them all the time, it's up to you if you'd wish to do so, i think it's worth a try


Electra 14 Apr 2004, 05:53

I thought everyone might find this interesting.

http://www.amsanz.org.nz/avmedia/24/am24_2vision.htm


Daisy 14 Apr 2004, 01:55

Hah...I've got contacts because i don't want to wear my glasses everywhere. The readers I use mainly at work. Leaving them on is not a problem, i was just wondering how i could see far clearly with them on. But you are making sense though.


Mike 13 Apr 2004, 12:23

I agree with the last post, it's probably the astig that makes a big difference even .5 cylinder, and is aligned alot better with the glasses than the torics. Consider getting the cylinder in the upper part of a pair of glasses with the add in a bifocal, and i'll bet you'd be happy!


Daisy 12 Apr 2004, 22:35

I tried torics way back. Couldn't get used to them and they are much more expensive. The cylinder part does not really affct me as it is small (that's what the optometrist says).


Tod 12 Apr 2004, 21:57

Daisy, I take it that your contacts do not give you correction for your astgmatism. So you are using glasses for reading with an astig correction for close up but you are also using it for intermedate distances because you also need the astig correction to see properly. I think you would be much better of with toric contacts that also correct for astigmatism and then get plus only power reading glasses for the computer.


Daisy 12 Apr 2004, 20:53

I'm hoping that some may answer some questions I have...

I am 26 and have worn contacts/glasses for a long time. I'm -4.75 in both eyes and have -0.75 cylinder in both eyes as well. I predominantly wear contact lenses, and glasses late at night and weekends. I recently got my eyes checked and my Rx didn't change (for two years in a row). What I did request was to get computer/reading glasses as I'm in front of the screen all day at work. He gave me +1.5 with the cylinder (as the contacts don't do it). They are great. I've had them for two weeks now. Computer work is a lot easier on the eyes. I got a little annoyed of taking them off and carrying them with me just to step into the other room. Now, I feel that i need them to see close as I have difficulty in reading without them. So I left them on. On one day I left them on pretty much all day and noticed that I could read the poster accross the room with them on by the end of the day. I took them off and it was a lot clearer, but I put them on again and it wasn't as clear, but I could read it. THe forst few days I couldn't read anything more than 5 feet away. Next day I did the same, and I could read clearly distant with or without. I left them on during my lunch. I then thought maybe my contacts were too strong. I went back to see the optometrist. He was puzzled, did my eye test again for distance and swears that the Rx is still -4.75. He tried putting it lower and I couldn't read the last two lines. I left with no better answers. Any thoughts as to what's happeneing?


Electra 11 Apr 2004, 05:23

Sam, in my opinion you'd just give yourself a headache. There's an industry ($$$$$$) devoted to reducing myopia and they'd probably be selling this idea if it were doable, which tells me it's not. I suspect that those who succeed in altering their vision have a natural leaning toward the direction they're aiming in. But, as always, I claim no expertise, and I defer to the opinions of others.


Sam 10 Apr 2004, 16:38

Hi Everyone! I have a current rx of around -0.75 in each eye and i was wondering If someone with myopia bought readers such as Kitty did and wore them often etc would they become long sighted or simple need an add put onto their - prescription. Sam


jeff 07 Apr 2004, 20:33

Phoropter,

Thank you for your thoughts. No, I have not taken steroids. I hadn't considered that cataracts might be the cause of the poorer near vision in bright light. I'll have the doctor look closely for posterior sub-capsular cataracts.

I had assumed that the scar flattened the very center of the cornea, making me less nearsighted in bright light when the iris is contracted, and my vision is mostly through the scar area. Being less nearsighted (or actually slightly farsighted) under this condition means blurrier near vision which has worsened as my accomodation has decreased. Along the same lines, in dim light more of my vision is from the area around the scar and my vision is more nearsighted (which is my natural state). This theory also helped me explain why my vision could be both sharper, in terms of distinguishing letter shapes, and blurrier at the same time when viewing distant objects through a weak plus lens.

Jeff


Phoropter 07 Apr 2004, 11:46

Jeff: Your symptoms of poorer near vision with increased brightness is a characteristic symptoms of the type of cataracts JJ was treated for, posterior sub-capsular cataracts (PSCs). Are you by chance taking any steroid medications like Prednisone? This type of cataract is a common side effect of steroid medications. PSCs can easily be missed if one is not looking for them. In regards to corneal scars, they normally do not change much over time. I'm also unaware of any photochromic lenses that react to incandescent light. Most people are more like your wife and would rather have more light inside (not darker as these lenses would make it).


 07 Apr 2004, 11:38


JJ 07 Apr 2004, 10:30

Jeff: I was diagnoised with Posterior Subcapsular cataracts and had surgery on both eyes this past year. I am 49 years old and your symptoms sounds very much like mine. I am sure you have been checked for cataracts but at this point I think I would get a second opinion since eye injuries can cause cataracts (mine were from eye injuries).


Jeff 07 Apr 2004, 06:52

Guest:

I wore glasses full time for several years about 30 years ago, and then contacts full time for maybe 10 years. In the last ten years or so I have not worn glasses full time because what works in dim light is very noticably not right in bright light and vice versa ( my vision is much worse with glasses when the prescription is not right for the current light condition).

Jeff


Guest 06 Apr 2004, 22:54

Jeff - did you years ago, and do you now still wear glasses fulltime? That may help if your eyes are always corrected to the full extent.


jeff 06 Apr 2004, 15:43

I have a problem getting satisfactory vision correction that I haven't been able to interest any eye doctors in solving.

About thirty years ago, when I was in my mid-twenties, I injured my right eye, leaving a small area of scarring in the center of the cornea. At the time of the injury my prescription in both eyes was roughly -2 with about 0.75 of cylinder. Over the years I have become less myopic; my prescription when last tested in 1999 was OD -0.75, -0.75 axis 90, add 1.75 and OS -0.50, -0.75 axis 90 add 1.75. With correction my vision is 20/20 in dim light. I dont know what it corrects to in bright light. Although I can read the 20/20 line with my right eye, the image is not as sharp or contrasty as with the left.

Starting about ten years after the injury and for the next ten years I wore contacts, first rigid gas permeable, then soft lenses. I stopped wearing contacts after noticing that my vision without contacts was not much worse and because allergies made them uncomfortable at times. During the years I wore contacts I was never very aware of poorer vision in my right eye (a coincidence?).

Over the last five years or so (after contacts and since I have needed correction for presbyopia), I have been increasingly aware of my vision in the injured eye. Specifically, when in bright light my near vision becomes much blurrier in the right eye and my far vision is clearer. This contrasts with the left eye which sees clearer near and far in brighter light. Also, I have noticed that in bright light I can read license plates further away if I look through the bottom half of my bifocals, although the image itself is blurrier.

The problem is that my glasses are only good for one light condition. The eye exam was done in dim light, and that's the light level where the glasses work best. In any other light level my vision is unbalanced and I can't comfortably wear my glasses. At my last eye exams the doctors just didnt seem to be very interested in the fact that my vision was different in different light conditions.

I find myself needing a stronger near correction and I plan to schedule an exam. I have several questions I want to ask the doctor in hope of getting a better outcome this time.

Has the scar changed? (I dont know who could answer that since as far as I know nobody has kept a record of it) Could I even out the vision in my right eye in different light conditions with contact lenses (by smoothing the effective surface of the cornea)? If so, would rigid lenses be the only answer? Would photochromic lenses help or do I simply need different glasses for different light levels? Are there any photochromic lenses that react to incandescent light? My wife (age 60) now needs brighter light to read, yet when she turns up the light I cant see as well!

What questions would you ask? What are your thoughts about how I could get a more satisfactory eye exam and better correction?


Kitty T 06 Apr 2004, 13:09

oh no i wear them all the time i love them. i see just great absolutely everything. i really believe they made my eyes bad i noticed the difference.


Daffy 05 Apr 2004, 21:39

Kitty - that's an interesting experience. The two women I know that wear the plus glasses don't wear them all the time, only for reading and doing close work. One actually has a progresive add to her planos as she said it was a pain taking them on and off all the time at work. They didn't develop hyperopia, just (i guess) lazy eyes.


Tod 05 Apr 2004, 08:44

DelDoc, you sure know your stuff. I stand corrected. I am only a layman when it comes to medicine


DelDoc 04 Apr 2004, 21:18

Tod--

Tropicamide and phenylephrine are routinely used for pupil dilation. Cyclopentolate is usually used for cyclopegic refractions. Atropine ("atrophene") is not widely used, if at all.


Tod 04 Apr 2004, 10:01

Plus crazy, you may very likely be hyperopic. You should go for an eye exam. If you can relax your focusing ability and then cannot read and see clearly in the distance than you are using your near focusing power to overcome hyperopia. Another clue is when you get up in the morning it takes you a while (a minute or so) to focus to see. Go have an eye exam and have the optom place atrophene drops in your eyes. This temporarly paralyzes the muscle of the eye lens and then you and the optometrist will know your true vision. In which case you will be prescribed glasses.


Plus Crazy 04 Apr 2004, 09:08

Hey Tod,

I also can let my eyes go blury by relaxing. I'm 20 now. But I've never experienced the symptoms of hyperopia. Will I have it in the future?


Tod 03 Apr 2004, 14:02

Yes Tanya, our genes play a mojor role in how we are. Like you I am hyperopis. I was able to let my vision go fuzzy from about age 9. I used to think it was some power I alone posessed. Later in junior and senior high school I still didn't have glasses but would get headaches almost daily.


Tanya 02 Apr 2004, 15:21

Hi Everyone

All this talk of glasses making your eyes lazy or increasing myopia, to me is rubbish, and is really caused by the body constantly changing.Some people are born with various bodily carachteristics which may, or may not change throughout their lives. A lot of our characteristics are inherited from our parents, and if they are short/long sighted,have large/small feet, Curly/straight hair, or are fat/skinny,short/tall or whatever,there is a good chance that we will, in some aspects, be the same. In my fathers' family there is a history of hyperopia, and most of my cousins on his side have worn glasses for this condition for years,many since early childhood,although I myself didn't need glasses for this until two years ago. Conversely, my friend of some forty years, has a history of myopia in her family, and has needed glasses for this condition since the age of four. Guess what?, we BOTH! needed to get bi-focals at around the same time, (we are both mid-40s.Presbyopia is a condition of middle age and, when I went for an eye test for reading glasses, I was told that I was hyperopic and needed a distance correction as well, when I told him of my family history, my optometrist told me that I had probably always been that way.(It may also have been the cause of my headaches at school).and prescribed bi-focals. In short, I was born with dark hair and, with(probably)hyperopia, and now, at my mid 40s have presbyopia, greying hair,(no dye, salt&pepper rules,Yeah!!),while my friend was (is) red haired, and has recently also become presbyopic,(the first change in her eyes since her early 20s).In closing, I believe that our eyes change as much as the rest of our bodies as we go through life, and, our eyes and how they work, is much a feature, of our lives as height, hair colour, etc, and everythihing else tha makes us human

Tanya


Willy 02 Apr 2004, 11:22

Kitty -- I don't think you need to be concerned with an eye doctor telling you not to wear glasses. If you can see well at distance through +1.5 and cannot read well without them, you are no doubt long-sighted. Unlike adaptation to minus lenses, I don't think you can change your accommodation to see well at distance through plus lenses unless you are long-sighted. But you should go for a test so you can get a real prescription


Kitty T 02 Apr 2004, 09:19

there isn't really much to tell you except that there were some other glasses in between. when i got the first ones the first day i wore them the computer was really great but in the distance it was fuzzy. i remember i had a bottle of hair gel on the window sill and to begin with i couldn't read the label then after about an hour i could only make out the big word gel but in a few days i could read it all. that was about 4 feet away i think. i'm trying to remember it must have been about 6 months because when i bought them it was warm i remember walking home in them and it was all fuzzy but it was so much fun. i remember it was cold when i bought the next pair because they steamed up when i got home LOL. they were +1.25 the second shelf down. when i got them i had the same fuzziness again and that took a lot longer to go away probably a month maybe more. i tell you what even then once i got the +1.25 pair i couldn't focus on my computer without them anymore it made me go crosseyed and it hurt. i've had the +1.50 pair about a year now and it was really really hard to get used to them but not only can i see clearly right into the distance with them now when i take them off i get the same fuzziness that i got with them at first. and also now i can't read even big writing close up without them. i'm only 18 so maybe that's why it worked. i've never had my eyes tested maybe i should go it would be interesting to see what they say but i really really love my glasses and you'd have to kill me to get them away from me LOL. they don't stop me getting boys either so anyone who thinks boys don't like glasses should try wearing them. i like boys with glasses to and my boyfriend wears glasses. you can put this on your website i think other people should try it it's fun.


Electra 02 Apr 2004, 05:22

Kitty: I'd like to hear about it, too, as I'm sure a LOT of people would be interested, and would you let me put it on my website? You can check it out first at

http://www.geocities.com/electra_the_migfetish_lady


Daffy 01 Apr 2004, 22:04

Curt, Those guidlines "FDA..." listed on EBAY are a requirement that EBAY want the seller to say for their legal protection. Before (about a year or two) this statement did not exist and the sellers item was then removed from the listing as an invalid or illegal item. There must have been a call for a method to sell these items, therefore now they are required to place that statement in order to list the item.

I have bought stuff that 'required a licence), but I never had one nmor did I ever get asked for one. They sell it anyway.

Plus Crazy...I like my annonimity, inviting them here would reveal my alias...So the answer is no. But, I have been tempted from time to time to slip in a little paper with the ES web address into peoples purses or car, hoping that they will someday discover on their own, this wonderful site. But i'm too chicken.


Plus Crazy 01 Apr 2004, 19:59

Kitty T,

It's interesting. Please post how you started becoming long sighted and the way you progressed. In detail please.

How Old are you?

Daffy,

Please ask those two girls to come to EYESCENE and describe the way they progressed to become long sighted.


Phoropter 01 Apr 2004, 13:30

Curt: I was unaware owning or buying a phoropter required a FDA license. I have a DEA # and state license to practice but I do NOT have an FDA license and I own 4 phoropters. Never bought one through E-bay though.

Why?, a phoropter can determine someones Rx do I suppose it is considered a medical device and therefore falls under certain guidelines, like contact lenses. However as you pointed out, you can also refract with trial lenses, do I'm not sure why these are excluded. I'm purely speculating, help from anybody else would be appreciated.


Curt 01 Apr 2004, 13:00

Phoropter: I have a question for you (didn't know exactly where to post it, so it goes here). I have seen old phoropters (the device, not you) for sale on ebay. They all seem to list the same caveat: "Buyers of this item may require licensing by the FDA...blah, blah, blah". In others words, if owning this item requires an FDA license, you will have to have one or they will not complete the transaction.

My question is: does owning a phoropter require an FDA license? If so, why? They sell scores of sets of trail lenses on ebay (haven't managed to find a cheap one yet), and all a phoropter really is is a set to trail lenses housed in an easier-to-use casing.

Can you shed any light on this subject?


Kitty T 01 Apr 2004, 09:54

you are right daffy and i know cos i've done it. i tried to make myself shortsighted but it was just too painful so i guessed i must be a tiny bit longsighted although i could read everything perfectly. i bought +1 ready readers and i wore them all the time from the very first day and now i can see everything fine in +1.50 can't see to read anything without them anymore. ok it was second best but at least i got glasses.


Phoropter 29 Mar 2004, 14:42

Tod: Sad but I'm sure that eyecare isn't the only thing these kids are lacking in the healthcare.


Tod 29 Mar 2004, 11:16

http://www.med.umich.edu/opm/newspage/2003/kidsvision.htm


Tod 29 Mar 2004, 11:14

an important message:

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:ttNB6PCiQFUJ:www.med.umich.edu/opm/newspage/2003/kidsvision.htm+corrective+lenses+on+girls&hl=en&ie=UTF-8


Tod 28 Mar 2004, 18:05

Thanks Phoropter


Daffy 28 Mar 2004, 17:58

I do believe that + glasses can make you dependant on them...not for distance to make you a hyperope...but rather develop lazy eyes for reading and close work.

I know of two girls that had perfect eyesight. They tried on someone elses readers and thought it helped them relax for close work and computer use. The eyedoc didn't give them an Rx so they went to get over the counter ones.

Now after some time they went to get their eyes checked and sure enough they can't read without.


 27 Mar 2004, 13:17

what is the BCC test?


Phoropter 27 Mar 2004, 08:11

Electra: Thanks.

Andrew: I normally use this test to confirm how someones accommodative system is working: normal (small accommodative lag), under (large acc. lag), or over-focusing (acc. lead). In a younger person whose focusing system is over-working (spasming) I suspect they may be over-corrected with minus or under-corrected with plus and may perform a cycloplegic refraction looking for more plus in their distance Rx. I suspected this to be the case of your friend.

FYI the BCC test is generally used most often to determine the tentative add power of a bifocal.


Phoropter 27 Mar 2004, 07:43

curious: DelDoc is right on about the horizontal end gaze nystagmus which is a normal physiological response to viewing in extreme gazes. This normal phenomenon is actually used by law enforcement because it is greatly exaggerated from central nervous depressants like alcohol.

Tod: I too am very much frustrated with the "See Clearly Method" as I get bombarded by patients all the time if this is an option for them. In addition, the famous US radio announcer Paul Harvey also really makes me mad with his $200 plus vitamins that cure macular degeneration and are marketed to little old ladies. My reply is always the same, "if it sounds too good to be true it probably is." The AOA did attempt to sue The Bates Method to no avail (its a legal nightmare, suing and counter-suing) although they were able to get the Doctor to remove his degree as optometrist (he never went to any Optometry school). Paul Harvey always CYA by never saying they work himself but by reading a testimonial of a viewer.


DelDoc 26 Mar 2004, 19:39

curious--

Sounds like you're experiencing endpoint nystagmus. It's common for the eyes to become jerky and be unable to maintain complete fixation when looking in extreme gazes.


Andrew 26 Mar 2004, 13:09

The answer to your question, Phoropter, is that I did not ask, as it had never occurred to me that the test would have been anything other than at the standard 6 metres distance. What sort of adjustments do you make to a prescription based on the test mentioned at a distance of 40 cm.?


Electra 26 Mar 2004, 10:24

I'm not sure if it's the same thing, but I recall my grandfather buying books about that, and no, it didn't work. If it WAS what you describe, I'm not surprised either!


Tod 26 Mar 2004, 07:32

One of the BIGGEST FRAUDS perpetrated today on the public are these radio ads for the "See Clearly Method" also known as the Bates Method. They take your money, show you dumb, con-man video and tell you to do some worthless eye (muscle) exercises. These are the muscles that move the eyeball side to side and up and down but have nothing to do with vision and have no control what so ever over the shape or length of the eye, the focal power of the lens or the shape and thickness of the cornea. SO WHY ARE THESE PHONIES IN BUSINESS? WHERE IS THE FDA? THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU? THE AMA? AMERICAN OPTOMETRIC ASSOCATION? THE BUNKO SQUAD? Its illegal to practice medicine without a license or to practice it using untested or unproven methods. Yet, I hear their advertisments all the time. I would like to hear testimony from some of their clients/ patents and see the optometry records from thier optometrist . But not in a paid commercial. I don't have perfect eyesight but I wasn't born yesterday either.


Tod 26 Mar 2004, 07:30

One of the BIGGEST FRAUDS perpetrated today on the public are these radio ads for the "See Clearly Method" also known as the Bates Method. They take your money, show you dumb, con-man video and tell you to do some worthless eye (muscle) exercises. These are the muscles that move the eyeball side to side and up and down but have nothing to do with vision and have no control what so ever over the shape or length of the eye, the focal power of the lens or the shape and thickness of the cornea. SO WHY ARE THESE PHONIES IN BUSINESS? WHERE IS THE FDA? THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU? THE AMA? AMERICAN OPTOMETRIC ASSOCATION? THE BUNKO SQUAD? Its illegal to practice medicine without a license or to practice it using untested or unproven methods. Yet I hear their advertisments all the time. I would like to hear testimony from some of their clients/ patents and see the optometry records from thier optometrist . But not in a paid commercial. I not have perfect eyesight but I wasn't born yesterday either.


curious 26 Mar 2004, 06:46

Phoropter ---Do you have an answer for this question? When I look to the far left while keeping my head straight, my left eye looks like it jumps. In other words, I can't concentrate on an object when I look to the far left. When I look to the far right it doens't happen at all with my right eye. I am very farsighted and my left eye is much weaker than the right. I this the reason why my left eye would do this?


Electra 26 Mar 2004, 05:31

Phoropter: I really like your attitude, you're not snotty like I'd expect a professional to be when surrounded by "know-all" amateurs. It's refreshing and really neat.


Phoropter 25 Mar 2004, 19:10

Andrew: Did she happen to say if the horizontal and vertical line testing was done at a close distance (40cm)? Why, I use an accommodative function test (Binocular cross cylinder test) that has a card with horizontal and vertical lines placed at 40 cm in front of the phoropter to determine if someone has an accommodative lead/spasm? It's different than the fan dial astigmatism test. If not I'm wrong too.


Guest  25 Mar 2004, 15:49

Curious, I agree you need to get an eye exam as soon as possible.It sounds as though your right eye is quite nearsighted, and you re getting alot of strain resulting in the blur afer close work.You will Benefit from wearing glasses full time, and your rt. lens will most likly be alot stronger than the lt.


Andrew 25 Mar 2004, 12:54

Well, Phoropter, we were both wrong! The acquaintance I mentioned has just had her eyes tested, and been told that she is short-sighted: a grand total of -0.25 in each eye. However, she also told me that she had spent quite a bit of the eye test saying whether the horizontal or the vertical lines were clearer, so I suspect that there's a certain amount of astigmatism in the correction as well. I should know more on Monday.


Electra 25 Mar 2004, 07:03

That's a very good question! I think they're probably a bunch of conspiracy theorists actually, same as the people who think the government is spraying us with something. But then I can't relate to their point of view, I'm a fetishist. To me glasses are beautiful.


Phoropter 25 Mar 2004, 06:59

Electra: Why are most of the Anti-glasses/Anti-myopia web sites asking for money if they are so altruistic?


Electra 25 Mar 2004, 06:54

Yes?


Phoropter 25 Mar 2004, 06:53

Electra:


Electra 24 Mar 2004, 13:51

No way! I couldn't put up with even the +1.00, not for any amount of time. With the +1.50 the floor goes out of focus, that's just scary. And in my considered opinion, anyone who needs -2.00 (i.e. the effect that +2.00 gives)who doesn't wear them all the time, is out of their tree!


Clare 24 Mar 2004, 11:39

Hey Electra, tell us what you thought of each of those pairs of specs you bought. Could you put up with any of them on a regular basis??


Electra 24 Mar 2004, 09:22

It is definitely possible to induce (or at least HASTEN) myopia, now that my website is starting to get better known I'm getting testimonials to that coming in almost daily. I don't think the experts are the experts in this. Obviously they know about the technical data, but to my mind an "expert" is someone who has done the thing successfully. They should know.

I had so much fun, I bought 5 pairs of cheap readers, $1 each, real nasty scratched in 5 minutes, but I am easily amused......I bought one of each of the strengths they had which was +1.00, +1.25, +1.50, +1.75, and +2.00. I was going to buy more when I realised I could put two lenses together to make higher strengths. Aha! The girl at the checkout gave me a funny look when I put five pairs of glasses in front of her, all different, and I couldn't help myself, I'm very bad, I told her I was having a party. She'll be telling that one to people for years..........


Curt 24 Mar 2004, 07:06

Electra: I think you answered your own question. I don't believe it is possible to induce hyperopia. If you wear + lenses that are too strong, all you will do is shorten your focal length, and if you try to wear them for distance, give yourself a nasty headache. But with - lenses, and especially with young people, it does seem possible to induce myopia (I don't care what the experts say). I know folks who wanted glasses as kids, fudged an eye test, got some low minus lenses, and eventually got "hooked" on them and became myopic and HAD to wear their glasses and became fulltime wearers.

Interestingly enough, I was in a drug store the other day and noticed a pair of +0.5 reading glasses on the rack. I'm not sure if they would be worth the $15 pricetag --- they were almost like looking through window glass (but then again, I wear +1.5 for distance with a +2 add, so to me there WERE like window glass!).


Electra 24 Mar 2004, 06:10

I've never understood why they allow people to buy reading glasses without an eye test but not otherwise. Seems a bit odd to me, it should be all or none. (For some reason it reminds me of giving vaccination exemptions for religious reasons.)

Here's a thought. Could it be that they know about Induced Myopia? Bear with me here. There are whole anti-glasses websites dedicated to trying to prove that glasses CAUSE myopia. Of course they're only talking about minus lenses. Maybe the experts are aware that wearing too high a prescription can lead to a permanent change?

But maybe (someone tell me) it can't happen with plus lenses? You never see people talking about inducing hyperopia. It is impossible, OR is it just that it's easy to cope with higher minus lenses than you really need, but virtually impossible to wear higher plus lenses than you need? I mean, I tried on +1.50 readers and it was horrible. I couldn't put up with that for 5 minutes.


Curious 24 Mar 2004, 05:29

Thanks to everyone for responding to my query. I guess I'll psyche myself up to go and have an eye test.

Julian, my close up vision with my right eye is okay, so i guess it may be shortsighted.


Matt 23 Mar 2004, 11:44

Melba, I decided I needed to wear them all the time one evening when I was waiting to be picked up and couldn't recognise my parents' car. Figured out that if I couldn't see cars properly, it probably wasn't safe to be walking around uncorrected.

As to why I say I should have gone full time at about -2.75, it's just a case of looking back and recognising that at this time there were lots of things I struggled to see (peoples' faces in the street, signs, things clearly in shops) and that glasses would have helped me in most situations.

I'd imagine its not a terribly scientific thing going full-time. I guess it could come down to a number of things:

a) a gradual deterioration and a recognition that you couldn't cope without them anymore.

b)wearing them a bit more often, taking them off less, and gradually drifting into full time wear.

c) being told my optician you need to wear them all the time.

d) getting a new pair of glasses that you really like.


Melba 22 Mar 2004, 13:49

Matt, or anyone, that's intersting. But how do you decide when it's time, and would -2.50 have been noticably better than the -2.75 that you estimate you were when you should have maybe made that transition. I guess my question is this, what's the difference between -2, -2.25, -2.50 or -2.75 ...


Matt 22 Mar 2004, 13:41

Girlie Guest, looking back I thing I would have benefited from wearing my glasses all the time about a year earlier than I did. I guess I'd have been wearing a prescription of about -2.75. I know I got my prescription of -3.50 in April and started wearing them all the time in June.


Phoropter 22 Mar 2004, 11:59

Oh will someone cut me off, Sorry Christy, no sure if you need any eye exam or not, but Curious does.


Phoropter 22 Mar 2004, 11:29

Opps, Christy get an eye exam like Julian recommended!


Phoropter 22 Mar 2004, 11:27


Julian 22 Mar 2004, 07:41

Curious, Christy is absolutely right, you need an eye test; and it sounds as if you really need correction for your right eye, at least. If you get something in your left eye while you're driving (it's happened to me) you'll be driving blind. You don't say whether you can see clearly close up with your right eye. If you can then you're probably short sighted in that eye; if not you might be long sighted or you could have a big amnount of astigmatism. How long have you been aware of the problem(s)? Anyway, it's idle to speculate - more to the point to spectaculate (I made that up myself!)

Love and kisses, Jules.


Christy 22 Mar 2004, 06:45

Curious - scared or not - you need an eye test. Please be assured that it won't hurt! Also - when you get the prescription from the optician - it's still entirely up to you whether you get specs.


curious 22 Mar 2004, 04:50

I've just discovered this website - it's cool. But anyway, I've got a question about my vision. I can see okay with both eyes, but if I close my left one, my right eye is heaps more blurry and I have trouble seeing things -for example, I can't even see where the number plate is on a car just in front of me, let alone read the letters and numbers on it; I can't make out the lines on a tennis net when i play tennis and I can't read street signs even when I drive right past them. Also, when I am indoors, especially in the movies and in shopping centres, I seem to have some double vision.

Another thing I have noticed , which seems to contradict this is that whem I am in a lecture theatre copying down lecture notes, after about 5 or 10 minutes of looking up at the board and then looking down to copy write my notes, I can't focus at all on my notes, but I can still read the board in the distance (provided I am using both eyes and not just my right one). It gets so bad that I can't even tell where I have written on the page so I have to use my finger to keep track of where i have written.

Also, after I do any prolonged close work (say 20 minutes or more), I can't focus on things in the distance with either eye).

Finally, sometimes when I am reading, I find it hard to concentrate on what I'm reading and my eyes seem to jump around. I seem to need to move the print really far away from my eyes to feel comfortable, but this often doesn't help me to actually see it.

I know this all probably sounds weird and rambling and contradictory, but I would appreciate if anyone has any suggestions about if you think I might be long or short sighted.

Also, is it a bad thing if my right eye has so much more trouble seeing than my left one? I don't wear glasses and am a bit scared to get my eyes tested. However, I think I need to do something.


Christy 22 Mar 2004, 02:16

My optician's prescription just refers to me as Mr Mrs Ms - he hasn't marked any one in particular!


Julian 22 Mar 2004, 01:34

Christy: I hear what you say; but then 'the customer is always right' and you should therefore be able to order glasses with whatever lenses appeal to you, whereas all you can do is buy off-the-rack readers of any strength up to +4 (around here anyway). Optometrists' practice is regulated like that of doctors and dentists. Finally it occurred to me to check my file of precriptions. All of them that call me anything call me the patient, and that includes NHS ones, old and new. One exception (from Vision Express) calls me a valued customer. I guess there is a dichotomy.

Love and kisses, Jules.


Girlie Guest 21 Mar 2004, 22:00

Matt, you said -3.5 was probably quite high when you became a full time wearer, looking back at what strength do you reckon it would have been necessary if you'd been ready?


Tod 21 Mar 2004, 14:41

http://sola.com/eyesight/special/beware.html


Matt 21 Mar 2004, 14:30

Whoever asked for my rx when I went full time, it was about -3.5. Probably quite a high prescription before I conceded I couldn't cope without.


Electra 21 Mar 2004, 14:06

Something that affects half the population is not an illness. Patient is a nasty word anyway, but you do require patience!


Christy 21 Mar 2004, 13:28

Julian - I most definitely see myself as the customer with the cash. I don't see myself as a patient as I don't regard myopia as an illness. In fact - I regard my slight myopia and astigmatism as something to be cherished so that I can legitimately wear specs!


Julian 21 Mar 2004, 12:59

The customer with the cash..is that the whole story? Is there a sense in which you're a patient? Or are you in aone relationship with the optometrist and another with the dispenser? Or of course there's the compromise word client.

Love and kisses, Jules.


Electra 21 Mar 2004, 12:30

Christy: You go! They only want more money out of you anyway.


Christy 21 Mar 2004, 11:37

I don't listen to my optician when he mentions contact lenses. I just tell him I'm not interested and switch off when he starts extolling the 'virtues'. I'm the same when he goes on about thinner and more lightweight materials for lenses - not interested - gimme glass lenses and a comforting weight! At the end of the day he must know that if he gives me what I want - then he'll get a fair price for it - and if he messes me about - I might go someplace else. He might be a professional - but I'm the customer with the cash!


Electra 20 Mar 2004, 15:35

Clare: No wonder people think glasses are a bad thing if there are eye doctors assuming that people would prefer contacts. People do listen to professionals, as you say. While I respect the opinion of professionals I've had good reason in my life to question them, especially to question their motivation. Don't even get me started on dentists who also do orthodontics. To them everyone has crooked teeth. You know what I mean? And my opinion on obstetricians is unprintable.


Electra 20 Mar 2004, 15:28

Of course, a lot depends on your grandfather. I don't ever remember seeing mine (OR my grandmother) NOT wearing glasses. Ever. So I guess they wouldn't have said stuff like that!!!!

But that was in the old country, maybe Americans are more uptight. Shall I go hide now?


 20 Mar 2004, 13:13

Matt - what was your prescription when you first wore full time?


Matt 20 Mar 2004, 12:57

Electra, Girlie Guest, I experienced a pretty similar reaction from my grandad when I started wearing glasses all the time. My mates were pleased I'd finally accepted I needed to wear them as I no longer appeared to ignore them or depend on them when we were out, but my grandad just couldn't understnad why I needed to wear them.


Clare 20 Mar 2004, 12:56

Electra, Girlie Girl - I'm all for the freedom to wear whenever you want but it maybe some of us out there would value some professional advice. When I hit -2 my optician's assumption was that I'd go for CLs and, I guess, wear them all the time. There's obviously a practicality aspect there that doesn't translate into glasses wearing but, and I've read others say the same, a bit of guidance would be really nice :)


LOL 20 Mar 2004, 12:54

Men don't make passes at girls who wear glasses because we are to busy having an erection! provided we have our glasses on and can see you.


Electra 20 Mar 2004, 11:26

Tangent: In this world of high-definition TV, digital recording etc, whose bright idea is it to deliberately shoot movies "grainy"? I bought myself a DVD-ROM so I could swipe those lovely freeze-frames of actors in glasses (a ton of them going up on my website soon, keep checking it) and what do I find? Half these ****ing movies aren't in proper focus!

Oh I suppose it's "atmospheric". Well it's annoying. Let's start marching on the street with placards....."NO BLUR! NO BLUR! NO BLUR!"


Electra 20 Mar 2004, 11:21

Yeah! And I had this crazy idea that glasses were meant for seeing with!

What you want is a T-Shirt that says "Rebel without a blur"


Christy 20 Mar 2004, 09:52

Well I'll damn well wear mine because I always wanted to wear specs and didn't get them until I was 30! Both my opticians have kinda suggested it was odd that I wear them all the time - and both said they'd "be useful for watching TV and driving" - only I've no TV or car! But at my last test my current optician just sighed as I walked in and said "I guess you wear them pretty much all the time now?"


Electra 20 Mar 2004, 08:56

I believe so, and the better attitude of "I'll damn well wear them if I want to!" has had elements in older generations (like mine!) anyway, it's been a gradual process.


Girlie Guest 20 Mar 2004, 06:15

Electra - in my family there's still a kind of Victorian attitude of 'you wouldn't want to wear them any more than you have to'. I wonder whether the next generation will be the opposite given the fashion statement of glasses today.


Electra 20 Mar 2004, 05:49

For blue read blur!


Electra 20 Mar 2004, 05:48

Girlie Guest, I think you're right and I think it's a good thing. Those old attitudes were cruel and rather pompous. It's not altogether fashion, there's something else. In the modern world our attitude is "why suffer?" and that's what I think it should be. Martyrdom makes no sense. Why tolerate a blue when you don't have to? Who has the right to tell you that you should just put up with it? There was a lot of quasi-masochism in our grandparents' days, they washed in cold water or lived in unheated homes thinking it would toughen them up. It just gave them pneumonia. Kids ran barefoot "for their health" and then got old and had crippling heel fissures. There was no health and safety laws, so our grandfathers all suffer from industrial deafness. No, give me the modern world with its comfort and choice!


Tod  19 Mar 2004, 17:21

So you think this girl can maybe get through the day without her glasses. I am wondering how she found out that she needed glasses? Many hyperopes at a young age go uncorrected, myself included. We think we have this strange "power" to make the world go fuzzy at will by relaxing our eyes. She may have had trouble keeping place while reading and got headaches often.

PS: if your wife or girlfriend has headaches often its a great excuse to have her get an eye exam!!!!!!!!!!!


Tod 19 Mar 2004, 17:11

also GG, today we need to see more, there is more traffic. 50 years ago few people even owned a car and computers were almost unheard of ect.


Girlie Guest 19 Mar 2004, 15:59

Do people here think attitudes to wearing glasses have changed in the last few years? I'm 25 and am pretty cool about glasses but my grandad who's 72 has apretty dogmatic view about it. In his day, he says, people only wore glasses all the time if they absolutely couldn't do without them, nowadays he reckons its all to do with fashion and people harm their eyes to easily (I guess he means become dependent - psychological or actual - on glasses) by wearing glasses when they could do without. Is this a fascinating study in attitude change? I think it is, like we've adopted a more disposable society we've also adopted one that says "hey, if you can't see as much as you want then wear your glasses whenever you want". That would certainly fit with what people here have said about not getting instruction about when to wear glasses. Seems like a few decades ago the eye doctor said when to wear them and the patient obeyed.


mattp 16 Mar 2004, 04:55

Brian-

There's a great website with vision simulators that I found with a google search when I got my prism correction last fall. Unfortunately, I got a new computer and a new internet provider a month ago, and did not save that URL.

My prism is base in because my eye turns out. The edge of the lens nearest the nose is quite thick--actually about twice as thick as the outside edge or the inside edge of the right lens, which does not have prism correction.

Matt


Brian 15 Mar 2004, 13:08

Matt and Chris, If my eye was lazy and focuses outward a bit then is that corrected with a base-in prism? I wasn't sure if a base-in correction fixes an eye that points out and vise-versa or if its the opposite way around.. Do you know of any websites where I could learn more about the corrections and that offer pictures of what glasses with prism corrections look like.. Thanks again for you help..


Julian 14 Mar 2004, 18:15

Right Brian; nice to know old friends are still around.

Love and kisses, Jules.


Brian 14 Mar 2004, 14:22

Yes, Julian i'm the same Brian, even though I don't post all the time I still follow the board and the discussion topics..


Julian 14 Mar 2004, 13:10

Brian: There was a Brian posting the first month or so of the original EyeScene seven years ago, first complaining of not being able to read the board in school, then getting glasses, and for a long time afterwards taking part in the general discussions. Just wondered if you're the same guy as some of the details seem to fit.

Love and kisses, Jules.


Brian 12 Mar 2004, 13:21

Matt and Chris, Thanks for your advice.. Like I said, its really not a major problem now, from time to time I do notice some focusing problems but its not like I'm seeing everything double at this time.. What I'll probably do is discuss it with my optometrist, but until it really become a problem where i'm having a lot of headaches or seeing a bunch of double images I think i'm going to try to avoid getting the prism correction in my glasses because it really seems like once you get that prism correction in your glasses you are really stuck wearing glasses and glasses only.. I really like the convienience of wearing contacts especially for sports and such and I really don't mind glasses but there are times when I really would like to continue to be able to wear contacts.. Has anyone every been prescribed a prism and been able to successfully wear contacts afterwards.. Thanks again Matt and Chris for your advice and suggestions, if anyone else has any advice feel free to pass it along..


Chris 12 Mar 2004, 11:52

Sorry, the first sentence of the last para should read....

Sure there are times when it's a pain not being able to wear contacts, but the advantages of relaxed eyes and always being able to focus win out every time.


Chris 12 Mar 2004, 11:50

Hi, Brian. About two years ago, I was given some prism correction in my spectacles prescription because I was getting headaches and double vision, especially when I was tired. At first I only wore my glasses at home and I wore my contacts most of the time. However, after a few months of that I got more and headaches when I had my contacts in and it was a real struggle to focus at times. In December 2002, I went back to the opticians and was told I'd have to wear glasses all the time. However, I avoided this because I didn't like the frames I'd chosen. But after another couple of months I was getting so many headaches I had to get new frames and switch to glasses full time.

I have to say that I wasn't keen on having to wear glasses again all the time, but after a few days my eyes felt so much more comfortable and relaxed that it stopped being an issue.

Sure there are times when it's a pain not being able to wear contacts and times, but the advantages of relaxed eyes and always being able to focus win out every time. If I was in your position, I'd at least mention it and have the discussion with your optician. Good luck.


Mattp 12 Mar 2004, 05:02

Brian--

I'm considerably older than you (almost 50), and just last October was prescribed a prism correction for my left eye because it wanted to wander out when I read for long periods of time (it is a 3D base in rx). My minus correction is the same as yours, but my glasses are trifocals for reading and computer work.

Now to answer your question about contacts. Your are right--the prism correction cannot be made into contact lenses. When I was your age, I preferred contacts, but as I got bifocals in my early thirties and I found it increasingly difficult to get sharp vision with contacts, I wound up wearing them only for sports and other outdoor activities. Unfortunately, with a prism correction in my glasses, I can't even do that. With a prism correction, everything goes haywire and i become dizzy when I don't have my glasses on. Thus wearing contacts without a prism correction doesn't work, and I can't do anything without my glasses (things like read in bed).

Sorry, I'm not sure this is what you wanted to hear, but based on my experience, once the prism gets put into the glasses, you'll be wearing glasses only full time. The advaqntage is the exceptional vision and the comfort of seeing things clearly, singly, without straining. Good luck--Matt


Brian 11 Mar 2004, 19:29

Last spring when I got my eyes tested, i was told that my one eye was a bit lazy and may cause double vision in the future.. I currently wear glasses and contacts with a prescription of -4.00 in one eye and -3.50 in the other eye.. I was told by my eye doctor that a prism correction might be necessary in the future if I start experiencing some double vision.. I have noticed that from time to time I do see some double images, sometimes while reading and sometimes if I quickly look at an object far away, so i'm wondering if I should tell my eye doctor about it when I go for an exam in a few months.. Its nothing that annoying but I wonder how much adding the prism would help.. My main concern is if I get a prism correction in my glasses would I still be able to wear contacts and be able to see out of them.. I have heard that wearing prism glasses, makes it hard to see right while wearing contacts, i'm not sure if this is a myth or actually true.. Is there any kind of contact that corrects with prism.. I'm 25 years old.. Any insight would be appreciated..


Phoropter 10 Mar 2004, 15:33

Bummer about your grandfather. Well then, assumming normal color vision, based on what you have described I would guess that you have had a hyperopic shift and need more plus power. Why?

A Bichrome (Red-Green) test is used to determine the spherical starting point in a refraction under the principle of chromatic aberrations. If someone initially states that the letters in red are blurrier (or more commonly the green are clearer), plus power is added until the letters in the red and green are equally clear. Based on this technique, if red things are fuzzy, you need more plus power. Good luck following all this.


Bug Eyes 10 Mar 2004, 13:48

Phoropter

I'm sorry if I mislead you a bit, I can see the colour red ok, but is so blurry that I can't read what the symbols are, they just look like red smudges. The blue numbers on the speedo and tacho, I can read ok> I cant ask my Maternal grandfather what like his colour vision was, he died in 1948.....;


tina 10 Mar 2004, 01:59

I have been wearing glasses since 13 years old, now I am 36. Had refraction of 6.00 to 6.5 with mild astigmatism. Due to headaches and nausea, eventhough I my power was 6.00, after conducting some tests eye surgeon prescribed a power of 4.5 and 3.5 because she explained that the muscles were strained and a lower power would help in correcting the vision and reduce power. Infact that was 2 years ago, since then I have change my glasses and power is around 5.00. A 100% correction is sometimes not necessary. Do some eyes exercise , like that suggested by Dr.Bates and your vision might improve. Good luck.


Phoropter 09 Mar 2004, 20:18

Bug Eyes: Sounds like a protanomalous color deficiency. If you really want to know what type color deficiency, get a eye exam and make sure an instrument called an anomaloscope is used to test your color vision. This is the only clinical instrument that allows for a complete diagnosis of a red-green defect (probably going to be hard to find someplace other than a University that has one though). I suspect you have a protanomalous defect considering you have a more difficult time with red objects. Does you maternal grandfather have a color deficiency? Deficiencies like these are most commonly inherited in a sex linked, X-linked recessive fashion.


Bug Eyes 09 Mar 2004, 14:10

Hi all

I have recently bought a new car with dash symbols that show red in the dark, which I can't see. During the day the symbols are white which I can see ok on the black dashboard in natural daylight, the problem only happens in darkness, does anyone know what could cause this effect? I am +1.25 in both eyes with an add of +2.00 for reading

Bug Eyes


Phoropter 09 Mar 2004, 12:17

To avoid having temporaily blurred vision while driving home at night. Otherwise, you are right they may not have any near problems, but people with accommodative spasms are notorious for complaining about blurred distance vision after lots or reading, etc. Low plus lenses for near work help relax the accommodative system to keep it from "locking up". If you know of any other treatments, like me know.


 08 Mar 2004, 22:51

But if the person can accommodate and read well without glasses, then why bother getting the plus Rx glasses that you are talking about?


Phoropter 07 Mar 2004, 18:31

Symptomatica: Lots of breaks if near viewing if possible, although not always practical unless you have a sympathetic boss :). Otherwise, yes, low plus lenses, +0.75 to +1.25DS worn for prolonged near activities.

Andrew: I personally consider anyone with less than 1.00 diopter of far-sightedness to be low.


Andrew 07 Mar 2004, 13:59

Thanks for that, Phoroptor. How much is a "low" amount of far-sightedness? By standards around here, anything in single figures might be considered low, but I suspect that is not what you mean.


Symptomatica 07 Mar 2004, 13:59

Phoropter: what is the usual remedy for this? Plus lenses? No lenses?


Phoropter 06 Mar 2004, 18:39

Andrew:

Accommodative spasms is a muscle spasm of the ciliary body (the muscle which controls focusing). It is most common in people with low amounts of far-sightedness and have overactive accommodation, or difficulty in relaxing their focusing ability. It is very common among who do near work all day long and their focusing systems temporarily "lock-up".

Diagnosis is made with a refraction after use of a cycloplegic agent such as cyclopentalate 1% which causes reversible paralysis of the ciliary body. We call this a "wet" refraction because it involves eye drops.


Andrew 06 Mar 2004, 13:38

What is "accommodative spasm?"


Phoropter 05 Mar 2004, 19:31

Interesting statement, "needs to hold books increasingly close to her face in order to read / see them clearly". Far-sighted and presbyopic people usually push stuff further away from them to make it easier. Only someone with moderate near-sightedness would hold something close but have much more problems at distance than you describe. Sure she could have some astigmatism since it would affect both far and near but I vote for little to no Rx and accommodative spasm. Regardless, without an exam we may never know.


guest 05 Mar 2004, 16:02

Andrew, sounds like she ie nearsighted, and may have some astigmatism. Squinting for distance, and holding reading material are the indications


Andrew 05 Mar 2004, 13:35

I was talking to someone earlier today who has also been experiencing vision problems. She tends to peer a bit at distant objects, but can then focus on them quite well, but when reading, if her eyes are tired, she needs to hold books increasingly close to her face in order to read / see them clearly. My observation, although I did not ask about this, is that she has been having a number of headaches. As I thought about her on my way home, I came to the conclusion that she was probably longsighted. She did say she had never had a proper sight test. How does this compare with your experiences?


John 04 Mar 2004, 13:36

Io, at first most of the time I could see OK without my glasses. When I took them off things in the distance would be a bit fuzzy for a short while, but they usually sharpened up pretty quickly. Like you, if I got headaches or eyestrain I would keep them on, so although it wasn't that common, there were times I would wear them for things like going out with my mates.

By the time I was 16, my glasses were a bit stonger and the fact that I was wearing them for an extended period was having an impact. My eyes started to relax a lot more having my glasses on for a few hours at a time and when I took them off things in the distance didn't drift back into focus as quickly anymore and I would suffer from headaches. Logic told me therefore, that once I'd put my glasses on it was best to keep them on.

At this stage, I still wasn't wearing them all the time, I wouldn't start wearing them until I needed to read or study, and occasionally there were days when I didn't wear them at all. Looking back, I suspect that my distance vision was less than perfect then. At my next check up I told the optician that I was ending up wearing them lots because once I'd started wearing them I was finding distance vision blurry and that I though I probably should wear them all the time. They agreed.


Io 03 Mar 2004, 15:17

oops - a number of typos in that last post but i'm sure you all catch the drift.


Io 03 Mar 2004, 15:15

Hi john, Thanks for your response.

at what point did you actually find you needed them to see clearly? at the moment i am just really wearing them if i get headaches and/or eyestrain but generally i can read even really small print fine. obviously when i wear them to do this everything is clearer (kinda like the difference between normal and bold font) but when i don't wear them i don't really notice that things aren't quite as sharp as they could be - if that makes any sense.

to be honest i think they make more of a difference to distance objects than close ones - looking across the room with them on all the spines of the books on the shelf are really clear. But without - not particularly clear. Again i don't really notice there is anything wrong when i don't wear them. The reason i mention this is because i always imagined that having hyperopia would affect closer thing rather than distant things.

that was very sream of consciousness!

this should probably be on the vision thread - sorry.


John 03 Mar 2004, 13:14

Hi Io, your experience seems similar to mine. When I first got glasses most of the time I only had to wear them for reading, but there were odd days when I had to wear them all the time because not wearing them was giving me headaches.

Later on, I also had the problems of poor distance vision and headaches if I'd been wearing my glasses for a couple of hours to do close work then tried to take them off. When I was doing my GCSEs, I could usually cope quite well bare eyed until I put on my glasses to go into the exam, but if I took them off afterwards things were quite blurry and it gave me eyestrain. After my next check up, I ended up wearing glasses all the time.

But, I agree with your point, when my prescription was low, the amount I had to wear my glasses did vary quite a bit.


Io 03 Mar 2004, 09:28

hi guys. i have a v mild prescription of around +1. I am currently writing up my thesis so i'm doing a lot of intensive computer work and reading. I find it weird that some days i can go without my glasses all day no problem and my vision is fine. other days i get a headache after about 30 mins so end up wearing them most of the time. the days i do decide to wear my glasses everything seems really vague and lifeless when i take them of. Also i'm sure normally my distance vision is pretty, but when i've been wearing the glasses then look into the distance without them everything lacks detail and is slightly fussy around the edges. With them on everything is really bold and sharp at all distances. I only ever notice the fuzziness after i take the glasses of so i'm probably just noticing the contrast between my eyes being relaxed with glasses and then not.

sorry - i really can't rebember the original point i was going to make...

It seems hyperopia is a lot more unpredictable than myopia! (not that i have much experience of either)


Tammy 01 Mar 2004, 19:10

Thanks Tod.


Tod 01 Mar 2004, 17:53

Tammy, i am so glad to hear you finally got your new glasses. Prayer does work. I hope you have much improved vision with them and that your vision stabilizes. I guess the new frames are a hit with your friends and neighbord and that you like them as well. The smaller frames will be lighter and will make the lenses appear less thick and they are stylish too. Good luck.


Tammy 01 Mar 2004, 16:51

I finally got my new glasses today. They are cocoa colored metal frames and the lenses are rectangular, not squarish as i previously said. These are the smallest glasses i think i have ever had. The Rx is OD -15.50 x +1.00 x 090 and OS -13.00 plano with an add of +3.00.


lentifan 29 Feb 2004, 14:45

Latino

The answer to your question would depend on how close you were to what you were reading. If you don't mind holding it an inch from your eye, I suppose you could take off your -45s to read.

Many years ago, I saw a chap who wore myodiscs routinely take them off to read! He needed to get himself about 2 inches from what he wanted to read. I don't know why he didn't get reading glasses or monoculars (one eye with a distance Rx and one with reading Rx).


Latino 29 Feb 2004, 08:31

Hello!

For someone who is myopic, what would be the highest prescription when they can still see to read without them?


Big ES Fan 22 Feb 2004, 07:08

leelee,

Sorry for the delayed responce. I've never had a problem getting progressives made with the prism, the problems occur with P.D. alighnment on the narrow progressive channel. A base in prism moves objects in so your eyes don't have to strain inward to focus. Consequently some opticians don't take in to account that your P.D. will be different without correction, asuming you can accommodate, when they tell you to look at thier nose, when they are taking the measurement. When they do get them right, I really like clear vision at all distances. The other problem is getting the axis correct on the cylinder. As the numbers go up, the margin of error becomes more important. I had this problem before I got bifocals, several years ago. I'm old enough to remember when getting it right was more important than it is now. In the last few years it seems like production is more important than quality.


leelee 20 Feb 2004, 15:48

Big ES Fan,

Wow, that is an impressive prescription. I thought they couldn't make progressives with prism, but maybe they just don't encourage it.


Phoroptor 19 Feb 2004, 11:13

Alan:

Sorry Alan, I guess I needed a release. After explaining astigmatism for the thousandth time to a patient, and then re-explaining differently year after year it gets frustrating. Long week at the office.


Big ES Fan 19 Feb 2004, 08:50

After closer examination let me revise my clock comparison to, right 12:15, left 11:30. Thanks


Big ES Fan 19 Feb 2004, 08:27

First post, long time reader. I'm male 52 and my prescription is,OD+2.75 -225 Axis 95 Base in 2 , OS+2.25 -1.25 Axis 80 Base in 2, Add +2.25 progressive. The cylinder right is close to 1:00 on the clock and left is at 11:00. I also have computer glasses with +1.00 added to the top and +1.25 st35 bifocal. You can't immagine how difficult it is to get a pair of glasses that are right with all of these combinations, especially progressives. It is difficult to funtion without them. This is a great site, thanks to everyone.


Filthy McNasty 19 Feb 2004, 08:25

To envisoin how a saddle shape comes from a torus, just take a square cookie cutter (in your mind) and press it into any surface of the torus - you'll get a shape that's saddle-like in configuration.


Joe 19 Feb 2004, 08:11

It's really not that difficult.

As you all know there are 360 degrees in a complete circle (I really do despair if anyone out there doesn't know that). Now there are 12 numbers on a clock face, hence the number of degrees between each number is 360/12=30. Hence 30 degrees corresponds to 1 o'clock, 60 degrees to 2 o'clock and so on. There's no point in going past 180 degrees because as the axis passes through the centre of the lens the whole thing repeats, so for instance 90 degrees is the same as 270 degrees, 10 degrees is the same as 190 degrees and so on.

Alan. Believe me. combining a spherical surface with a cylindrical one does result in a toric surface. If you think about it a saddle is a toric surface in that it has two different radii 90 deg apart. ie the curve is different from back to front than it is from side to side.


Question 19 Feb 2004, 07:32

Does .25 cylinder at 100 axis really make any difference? I mean it is such a nominal rx addition. Couldn't this left out? What does the 100 axis mean anyway? Does it mean the thickest part is at the outer and the inner lense?


Alan 19 Feb 2004, 05:56

Cylinder question: What direction (and from what perspective) does the axis number refer to? In other words, 60 degrees is at 2 o'clock, but is that 2 o'clock from the wearer's perspective or from the doctor's perspective? Same for both eyes, or do they go opposite for the two eyes?

By the way, I'm not sure a torus is the right shape to use to explain sphere+cylinder glasses lenses...glasses that correct for, say, myopia and astigmatism don't have the shape of a portion of a doughnut -- it's more like a saddle. Can't remember what the proper shape is called. (Phoropter - your post about when astigmatism is "truly" understandable was pretty odd.)


 19 Feb 2004, 04:49

axis in degrees divided by 30 will equal the clock hour.


guest 19 Feb 2004, 00:50

LeeLee, 60 degrees would be at the 2 oclock position. these positions are related to the optometrist facing the patient wearing the trial frame.Hope this is clear enough.


guest 19 Feb 2004, 00:41

Clare/LeeLee Best thing to do is get a picture of a trial frame.It's abit confusing but in a nutshell, the 90deg. is at the top or 12 oclock position, and the 180deg.is at the horizontal, or the 9 oclock.Books on optometry show this and explain it.


Clare 18 Feb 2004, 22:00

I say try the points of a compass - then 180 dgrees would be the at what would be 6 o'clock. 90 would be at 3 etc.


leelee 18 Feb 2004, 20:08

OK smart guys, here is another question related to this topic.

I have heard of the axis being related to a clock face, but how do the numbers on a clock relate to the axis numbers. Specifically:

What time would say x 60 correspond to?

Would it be appropriate to think of this in terms of a football sitting on a clock face? If so how would this football be arranged for something like (-.5 x 60) for example.

What numbers would the points of the football be closest to?

What about other axis (assume all are for minus powers) like:

x100, x180, x90, 45, 30, 75

Is this a crazy question, or am I in the ballpark?


Phoroptor 18 Feb 2004, 18:27

Dr. Expert and Joe:

Astigmatism is only truely understandable to someone with your backgrounds in geometric, ophthalmic or physiological optics.


Tammy 18 Feb 2004, 15:08

You guys are making me hungry!


MVIII 18 Feb 2004, 15:07

Electra

My preference would be for creme filled donuts. Now that's a sight for sore eyes. (Half-hearted laugh heard in the background.)


Electra 18 Feb 2004, 11:09

Actually it conjures up some interesting visuals of glasses made from donuts, but that's just me being weird!!


Joe 18 Feb 2004, 09:27

A cylindrical lens is just that, cylindrical. Not a complete cylinder of course, just part of the surface of a cylinder. A spherical lens is likewise a portion of the surface of a sphere. When you combine the two you get a shape known as torus (that, by the way is where toric contact lenses get get their name from but I digress).

OK so a spherical surface is like part of the outer surface of a ball, a cylindrical surface is like part of the outer surface of say, a pipe. Now a toric surface is like the outer edge of a doughnut, it has two different radii of curvature 90 degrees apart from each other. A torus or doughnut is essentially a cylinder bent around on itself so there's the radius of the bend and the smaller radius of the original cylinder you started with.

The axis of a cylinder is the imaginary line through it's centre along it's length. Axis as far as an rx is concerned starts at zero (or 180) for the vertical plane. So for the example used below, the axis is clocked round 40 degrees from the vertical. At this line the power of the cylinder is zero so the total power of the lens is just the spherical part ie -1.00. 90 degrees further round, at 130 degrees the power of the cyl is +1.25. Note that the spherical power is still -1.00 so the total power of the lens in the 130 degree plane is +1.25-1.00 = +0.25. At the points between 40 and 130 degrees the cyl varies so the total power of the lens varies between -1.00 and +0.25. Astigmatism arises from having a toric shaped cornea rather than a spherical one. The corrective lens basically mirrors the toric defect but offset by 90 degrees.

Oh dear, having re read this I realise I have probably complicated matters. I have to agree with Dr Expert in that this is almost impossible to explain without pictures. Still, I know what I mean even if no one else does.


Electra 18 Feb 2004, 05:40

Electra accepts and encourages photos for her website................


Dr Expert (self-appointed) 18 Feb 2004, 04:29

I agree with you Julian.

If i could post a picture here, i could easily demonstrate the effect of the cylinder in this case.

Oh well.


Julian 18 Feb 2004, 04:17

GLCK: the other thing to say about your prescription is that there is more cylinder than sphere in it, whichever way it's written and I think (but correct me if I'm wrong, somebody!) that in this case adding the two together doesn't give a meaningful answer. The main problem with each of your eyes is astigmatism.

Thinking some more about it, I wonder if I'm right in thinking that adding sphere + cylinder makes sense only when they are either both plus or both minus. If they have opposite signs and the speher is greater than the cylinder, then the value of the sphere is the maximum refractive error.

Some people reckon sphere + half cylinder gives a realistic expression of the strength of a lens, and certainly that will give the same result whichever way the cylinder is written - but again it won't work if the cylinder mosre than cancels out the sphere.

I'm sorry, this has ended up far more technical than it was meant to be, and I've got pretty deep into the arithmetic. But can somebody who understands what I'm saying pleae either agree or disagree?!?

Love and kisses, Jules.


Dr Expert 18 Feb 2004, 02:34

Ok, I'll try to keep it simple!!!

-1.00, cyl +1.25, axis 40

means that you need -1.00 (your maximum correction) and -1.00+1.25 = -0.25 at an angle of 40 degrees.

Your corneas are not perfectly spherical, so like 1/2 of glasses wearers you need a cylinder as well. Your left eye needs more curve (the cylinder) at the 40 deg angle, and less at 130 deg

the axis shows the direction the cylinder works, if you add/remove 90 degrees from the axis it will give you the angle were the cylinder doesnt work.

Ok, I'll admit that this probably didnt help you much, but I'll just throw my 2c into the top hat.


GLCK 18 Feb 2004, 01:42

Just curious

Any answers to this query with regard to adding the numbers together

"GLCK 14 Feb 2004, 06:04

Prescript is sph -1.00, cyl +1.25, axis 40 that is for right eye and left eye is -0.75 sph, +1.00 cyl and axis 120.

Have become quite interested in why glasses are prescribed and what they should be used for etc. I have done a lot of "surfing the 'net'" and now totally confused. Have read somewhere that you add the numbers of the sph and cyl together and that you will give you your prescription i.e. so when you add mine together that would give you a -0.25 (hardly seems worthwhile having)but I have also read somewhere you ignore the + and - signs for cyl so does that make -2.25 and -2.75. When I look through my glasses back to front they are fine and vision is more sharper than without but if I look through them unside down everything is fuzzy. just interested. I tend to wear them now for reading, watching the telly, driving and computer work, so more often and not leave them on full time"


Tammy 17 Feb 2004, 13:43

Tod, yes i did get the results of my angiogram, and they were perfect. I hope my new glasses come in sooner than soon! At the moment i am wearing a pair of spex that are -14.25 and -13.25. This is the closest thing i have to my new Rx.


Tod 17 Feb 2004, 12:38

Tammy, i hope you get your new prescription glasses soon and they help you to see better. Do you know the out- come of the angigram florishien test you had?

My computer is still in the shop as of today. they said it was fixed but i asked them to reinstall the operating system because I had trouble with this so I had to bring them in the CD ROMS. I hope to be fully back on line soon.

My apology to the viewers here as I know this has nothing to do with ES.


JP 15 Feb 2004, 14:16

Tammy,

-15,50 (+1,00)90 is the same That -14,50 (-1,00)180

JP


Tammy 14 Feb 2004, 19:11

Guest, Thanks for telling me that.


guest 14 Feb 2004, 18:44

Tammy, It is common practice for an opthalmologist or optometrist to write the rx. with the cyl. as a plus, but the optician will make the lense in a minus,and change the axis by 180 degrees. The power of the lense is the same either way.


Tammy 14 Feb 2004, 14:14

Russell, thanks for clarifying that! It was an ophthalmologist who wrote out my prescription this time.


Russell 14 Feb 2004, 10:53

I'm no expert, but in other posts on ES, people have said that usually an optometrist writes cylinder in minus, while an opthalmologist writes it in plus. The power, however, remains the same either way (perhaps because of the axis?)


GLCK 14 Feb 2004, 09:04

Tammy, Sorry we seem to be at cross purposes here.

I want to know what the difference is as well because I don't know.


Tammy 14 Feb 2004, 08:55

GLCK i dont know thats why i was asking i guess that it could benefit me either way and that the eye doctor knows what hes doing.


GLCK 14 Feb 2004, 06:06

What difference does it make when sphere is written in - and cylinder in + or sphere written in + and cylinder in - or sphere and cylinder written in + and sphere and cylinder written in -


D-W-V 13 Feb 2004, 16:16

Optrick:

Yes, leave the astigmatism part (cylinder) alone. Just increase the sph(ere) numbers as desired.


Optrick 13 Feb 2004, 15:48

If I want to order some new glasses from an online site, and I don't want to go to the eye doctor - I just want to make my previous prescription a little bit stronger - then what do I do with the astigmatism part of the prescription?

For instance, if my prescription is +1.50 -.50 and I want to make the new one +1.75, then do I keep the astigmatism part -.50? Or does it become a different number?

(As for why I want to do this: my close-up vision is blurry with my current glasses, but my eye doctor came up with the same prescription as I already wear when he tested me. So now I want to take matters into my own hands...)

Thanks for your help


Tod 13 Feb 2004, 10:50

sorry, I have not been able to post as of late. my computer is in for repairs. I hope to be back on line soon. I am on a public server today.

Tod


Tammy 12 Feb 2004, 14:34

Spexman, yes, i am back in my chair again...lol.

Andrew, yes, i guess it is in line of what i believe i saw. I hadn't seen any correction for the astigmatism though, and the correction for the myopia was -15.00. The doctor did tell me that he was taking some of the correction for astigmatism and adding it to the correction for myopia. Something puzzles me though. Why would he change the cylinder correction from a minus to a plus? Then, again, he left some correction for astigmatism as cylinder, for my right eye, but not for my left eye. That's weird too. However he did tell me that the whole object of the game is to get me to seeing better. (those were not his words but they're close enough.)


Andrew 12 Feb 2004, 13:24

I've just ordered a new pair of glasses, too, but that's because I dropped my others while swapping from contacts to glasses yesterday, and one of the arms broke off.

Tammy,

I suspect you did not misread the Rx, it's just the way it has been written. It could equally be -14.50, -1.00, but the axis for the cylinder correction would have been different. Does that sound more in line with what you believe you saw?


Spexman 12 Feb 2004, 13:15

So are you in the chair again now ?? Watch out so dont get a retina loss *LOL*


Tammy 12 Feb 2004, 13:12

I just got back from ordering my new glasses. I am getting some small, squarish,cocoa brown metal frames. They should be ready for me to pick them up in about 2 weeks.


Tammy 12 Feb 2004, 13:09

Spexman, myofan is correct in interpreting it rotflmho is the online abreviation for rolling on the floor, laughing my head off.


Spexman 12 Feb 2004, 13:08

ok I havent camed longer than to LOL ;-)


myofan 12 Feb 2004, 10:02

Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Head Off.


Spexman 12 Feb 2004, 09:33

??? dont understand Im from a non english speaking country ;-)


Tammy 12 Feb 2004, 09:20

Spexman, you've got me rotflmho with that! Oh, well.


Spexman 12 Feb 2004, 09:16

Hi again !!

This was a little bit funny I wrote as an answer to GLCK but it matched you also Tammy ;-)


Tammy 11 Feb 2004, 09:38

Spexman, Yeah, i know that it's a different issue, and i don't know why he made the cylinder plus instead of the minus that it always has been. I'm sure he has his reasons, i just don't know what they are.

Yeah, it's great!

Wolfgang, before, the ophthalmologist had written the new Rx as being " -15.00 and -13.00. I don't know why he upped it from that even, unless he was hoping to get my visual acuity closer to 20/20 than it is.

LeeLee, thanks for posting!


Spexman 11 Feb 2004, 08:38

Hmmm now I saw that cylinder was written in plus so thats another deal then but anyway whats your biggest issue is the astigmatism you have which is corrected with cylinder lenses.


Spexman 11 Feb 2004, 08:36

Hello I think you have asked this before but as no one has answered before I will do now.

You are a little bit myopic which probably not disturb you but the cylinder correction is a whole lot meaning you will with this glasses see all clearer in all distances look at a text from 1 meter distance with and without then you must see big differences in the clearness in for example a text.

I will also suppose you must have suffered a great deal of headache when you have that amount cylinder uncorrected havent you ? I think this glasses of yours will be the best aspirins you ever had.

And dont missunderstand me now about the high amount of cyl, but I guess most cylinder corrections is 0.25-0.50 some goes up to both 2 and 3d and some higher, up to 6 but thats rare.

But -1.00 should have bother you before in my opinion.

Hope I have str8ted somethings out for you.


GLCK 11 Feb 2004, 08:11

I have just got my first pair of glasses. Aged 39. Don't know the prescription means and what I should wear them for. Find that they make everything bolder especially computer writing and text in books. Prescript is sph -1.00, cyl +1.25, axis 40 that is for right eye and left eye is -0.75 sph, +1.00 cyl and axis 120. What does this mean and what should they be used for. I drive.


Wolfgang 11 Feb 2004, 03:40

Great rx, Tammy! Which rx did you have before?


leelee 10 Feb 2004, 19:27

That's great Tammy!


Phoroptor 10 Feb 2004, 14:47

Wondering:

You describe the older autorefractors very accurately.


Tammy 10 Feb 2004, 12:29

I went to get the results of my angiogram today. The ophthalmologist said that it looked perfect. No problems at all. That's good news! I also got a copy of my new Rx. The doctor upped it a bit from when i saw it on the clip board, or maybe i saw it wrong. Anyway, my new prescription is OD -15.50 x +1.00 x 090 and OS -13.00 x plano x plano. My bifocal also went up to +3.00


Andrew 08 Feb 2004, 13:07

To answer your question, Julian, it was 1978, and I was 13. I escaped the NHS specs three pairs later, in the term before I did my A-levels. My parents had agreed to get me contact lenses, but only after I had completed my exams, just in case they gave me any problems.


Puffin 06 Feb 2004, 06:30

I remember seeing the whole range of NHS frames available about 25 years ago, there were something like 20-30 choices as I remember, and believe me, ugly as they were, the most common type, the squashed plastic oval, were really the best looking in the range. Some of them were ghastly-looking things I think like cheap, nasty and feeble imitations of late sixties fashions.

Thankfully these things are just a memory.


Wondering 05 Feb 2004, 21:30

Have another question, Back in the mid 80's, the Opthamologist I went to had me look into a machine.. Which I would now days believe to have been an autorefractor. This was pre-screening. It was actually like one of the old Titmus Vision screeners. I hadput my forehead against it looking through this machine (was a binocular machine) that had a picture of a 'cartoon racetrack' I was told to stare at the white line in the center (a passing stripe). They pushed the button, and the center stripe moved back and forth real jerky like, and made me see double everything. Then it'd move back to center, and do it a few more times. Was this an autorefractor? I've always been curious. I remember this like it was Yesterday, lol. Thanks for your answers!

I should also add that there was a black and white little monitor on the back of the machine showing both eyes.


Christy 03 Feb 2004, 23:47

I well remember those NHS specs from my time in British primary school. Not many kids had them - and it may well be that even though they were free - kids just didn't like wearing them. I was quite fascinated by them - and one of my best friends ended up with them - to his absolute embarassment! I remember kids wearing bent NHS specs - with the twirly ear loops stuck out at all angles. I remember specs stuck together with sticky-tape or Band Aid a la Harry Potter style. I also remember kids wearing specs with the glass lenses cracked into three or four parts. They might have been free - but they sure didn't get replaced much when damage occurred.


lentifan 03 Feb 2004, 15:09

The wearers of these NHS specs may have felt victimised at having to wear them, but that didn't prevent me from fancying the girls who wore them - as long as they were not too bent or dirty. I'm talking about infant/primary school days. Especially if the lenses were noticeably stronger. Of course, I didn't have the confidence to tell them how cute they looked. Looking back, perhaps in a perverse way the knowledge that they felt afflicted by having to wear those round black wire-rims increased their attraction for me.

I thought the main disadvantage of the NHS wire-rims was that they seemed very easily to become knocked out of shape. The brown tortoiseshell plastic frames which older kids wore were, or their equivalents in more 'fashionable' colours such as blue or flesh-coloured, were better in my opinion than some of the posher alternatives which for girls seemed to consist of coloured plastic with clear plastic lower parts got up to look like semi-rimless. But no-one was fooled; most of them were awful.

Then came bold black plastic frames and suddenly specs had become a fashion item. Then came contact lenses......damn!


Pinkspecs 03 Feb 2004, 13:26

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NHS_EYES/


Scotsman 03 Feb 2004, 11:59

Re NHS glasses, I would've rather went around with a white stick and a Labrador rather than wear those things....


Julian 02 Feb 2004, 23:46

Andrew: how long ago did this happen and hw old were you? And how on earth did you cope before you got them? My first pair were NHS mottled brown plastic too. They weren't what I wanted, but at least I had glasses of my own at last (I was 18)

Love and kisses, Jules.


JR 02 Feb 2004, 20:13

Clare and Andrew:

What you both describe is one of the problems of socialized medicine (National Health Service) that for the sake of cost and the need for conformity that those in the system seemed to need, they had only two colors in rather thick plastic, both rather ugly, and only one shape, also very unattractive. This produced thousands of stigmas that led to thousands of inferoirity complexes about the wearing of glasses! Many (several thousand) would go around not wearing them and not seeing very well at all, sometimes putting themselves in difficult situations. Those that had such poor vision that they had to wear them to see anything, had to endure the comments and teasings that their dear classmates heaped upon them.


Linda 02 Feb 2004, 12:07

Does anyone know what the axis means? I have .25 astig with 100 axis in one eye added to my regular rx. Is the astigmatism rx a plus or minus? or is it a neutral thing. I am farsighted so does that mean it's +.25 or -.25 added to my rx for the astigmatism part?


Andrew 02 Feb 2004, 11:45

Once upon a time, a future OO was told he needed glasses, and was duly prescribed a pair of brown NHS specs. The fear of such a visual aid was one of the things that had kept him from revealing his need for visual correction from his parents for two whole years. It was only when his new School gave him a full medical that the truth came out. Looking back, his first Rx was probably in the region of -3, but even then, the fear of teasing about NHS specs led him not to ask the fateful question "How often should I wear these?" It was only as the possibility of getting his parents to pay for CLs arose, that he finally bit the bullet, and turned to full-time wear. I know; I was that teenager.


Clare 30 Jan 2004, 15:03

Alan - you're right, this is all about moving with the times. But as a 30-something I still can't forget the National Health Service glasses that kids in the UK used to wear 20-30 years ago. They really weren't attractive and only went to reinforce the stereotypical attitude that to wear glasses demonstrated an impediment in visual and sartorial terms. I like glasses, I think they can (but don't always)look great. In fact I'd go further than that, I applaud the fact that people who need them can be proud of the and, in a funny superficial way, I'm glad to that people who don't need them can enjoy them too. We probably need more of them to make the point. Not that I'd want to be one of those who chooses to adopt the equivalent of the 'impediment' that glasses represent. Funny how those who wear them without prescription appear happily unaware of the prejudices that I remember from my younger years. I really like this approach, it makes me feel I want to be part of this trend.


Matt 30 Jan 2004, 11:56

Alan, I guess how people perceive glasses is, in part, an attitude thing. When I first started wearing glasses, I saw them as something I needed but once I'd started to wear them all of the time I did see them much more as a fashion accessory. As a result I am prepared to spend much more money on a pair of glasses and change them fairly frequently.


maddog 30 Jan 2004, 08:06

Geeky, I wear glassesthat are only -.50 with a slight astigmatism correction and they're proggressives because of presbyopia and I definitely find I need them to see clearly all the time except for things like using the computer. I'm due for another exam, so maybe I'll need -.75 this time. I've read all the posts about the girls that are -2s and -4s that try to make it without wearing their glasses and I wish I could watch.


Alan 30 Jan 2004, 07:00

Clare -- I think the change in image is interesting. I'm not sure the fact that glasses are seen as fashionable right now is very surprising -- if well chosen, they can make anyone look better (or at least appealingly different). I think it's just the availability of frames that fit people's faces better. The fashionability of glasses makes perfect sense -- they actually look better than sunglasses (which hide the wearer's eyes), yet sunglasses have been fashion accessories for a long time. I think the change has been slow in coming, probably because of both lousy designs and many people's lingering memories of people getting teased about glasses as children. Another factor I hadn't thought about before might be the increasing prevalence of nearsightedness - I'm pretty sure the rates are increasing, so more and more young adults need vision correction (and weak minus lenses are probably the ones the most people find appealing visually)...young professionals and college students are aware that the majority of their peers wear glasses or contacts, so there's less reason to think of wearing glasses/contacts as some kind of weakness that needs to be hidden. It's "normal". Another interesting thing, I think, is how glasses and Lasik are competing with one another -- they each want to be the "coolest" way to go. To their credit, I think glasses are holding their own. (Of course, contacts are competing in the same arena, and are also doing pretty well. Heck, there are 30-day extended wear lenses now; they're kinda expensive, but they offer pretty unparalleled convenience for people who find they work out.)


Clare 29 Jan 2004, 14:54

Andrew, Geeky - interesting that glasses are more than just a visual accessory nowadays, which is different to when I was young. We have a couple of people with new glasses at work and I've overheard people (guys and gals) saying "I really like those glasses ..." about both of them. One a redhead with great contrasting brownish plastic lenses, the other with rimless. Isn't it interesting that they're seeing the glasses as a fashion item rather than an impediment.


Andrew 29 Jan 2004, 13:00

I doubt that she needs them to see round the office, but the best place for keeping your glasses so that you have them when you need them is on your nose. Added to that, if she wants to take them off, she needs to have somewhere to put them, and the cases which come with glasses tend to by chunky in order to fit the contents. I suspect also that the one thing which she might think of as more embarrassing than to be seen wearing glasses, is to be seen having to put them on in order to be able to see (with grateful thanks to Sir Humphrey for the last sentence).


Geeky 28 Jan 2004, 13:48

A couple of months ago a colleague got glasses with a prescription of -0.75. She surprises me that she comes back from meetings and is still wearing them in the office. Does she really need them or might she just like wearing them?

They're rather nice semi-rimless in a pinkish shade but the lenses are rather thin, probably because they're not strong.


Donnie Schoonover 27 Jan 2004, 13:50

Hi

I didn't know where exactly to post this..

Does anybody know what the conversion of the japanese rx (they measure the strenght of lenses in numbers like 0.02) in the usual diopters that we know in Europe or the States is. Would be great if someone could send the "key".

Thanks

Donnie


High Myope 26 Jan 2004, 11:26

Molly: It sounds as though your nearsightedness has increased since your last exam. Therefore, the prescription you were given is now obsolete. I suggest having another exam, even though it's only been four months, and getting glasses in the new prescription. Then, wear them as needed and take them off when you are comfortable being without them. From my own experience and that of my nearsighted kids, I can vouch they during the teen years, four months is long enough for myopic eyes to change. Good luck!


Andreas 26 Jan 2004, 10:08

yes, molly, from what you tell us

you probably need glasses or contacts

for school or you could move to first row and get them a bit later,

but probably you will need them.

You will not fully depend on them,

just only for school, perhaps for movies and TV too

sorry to say that, best regards,

Andreas


molly 26 Jan 2004, 09:09

hi i have a prescription of -0.75 and -0.5 but the optician said there was no point getting glasses as it was such a small prescription. This was about 4 monthsago since then i have found it increasingly harder to read th white board at school but i don't want to get glasses if there is no point and i will just depend on them, is this true and do i need glasses?


Tod 18 Jan 2004, 18:38

Tammy, I think ovals are nice in eather metal or plastic. I have always wondered what is meant by geometric shapes. Triangles, trapizoids perhaps? Or some such?


Tammy 18 Jan 2004, 17:22

Tod, thanks for the well wishes!

Right now i can hardly wait until it comes time for me to order my new spex. I think that i should be able to do that in February when i get the results of my testing. I am also trying to decide whether i should get plastic or metal frames. I have been told 2 or 3 times that i should stay away from the geometric shapes, as they wouldn't look good on me. I know from experience that round and oval frames do look good on me.


TP 17 Jan 2004, 15:09

Thanks for the responses, she didn't actually receive a prescription but that is what she noticed being entered into the computer [as instructed by me ;)], but it brings me to another question, at what prescription are you required to wear glasses for driving?


Tod 17 Jan 2004, 13:49

Tammy, I am glad you finally got to have the fluorescein angiogram test. Its good your mom went along too. Hope all goes well!


Russell 17 Jan 2004, 09:17

TP...tell your niece to ignore the optometrist and get the prescription filled. She will be very happy seeing things more clearly. It seems strange to me that a doctor would even give her a prescription if he didn't think she needed it. I would think that he was just offering an opinion that she could do without glasses if she wanted. If she wants to see clearly, however, she needs the glasses.


Trisha 17 Jan 2004, 05:26

I had an ex boyfriend who discovered he was myopic at the age of 28. At the time I didn't think anything of it, but after browsing around this site for the past few months, I realise that it was strange for him to have gone so long without correction. Although he probably didn't know any different.

I remember he sat closer to the tv than me and then I started asking him what he could and couldn't see. He decided to have an eye exam and I can't remember what his prescription was but he got some glasses and was a full time wearer after that day.

I loved them.

After we split up, we remained friends, and his new girlfriend made him get contacts, which he didn't suit at all. He was always blinking and his eyes just didn't look right.

I don't see him now so don't know whether he went back to glasses.

Seems strange that he went right through school, was an avid reader and did loads of close up work but never realised his distance vision wasn't too good until 28 years of age.


Clare 16 Jan 2004, 23:04

Nashreen - I guess your trauma with the incorrect rx probably isn't so rare. A friend of mine was saying that she had a similar problem involving some four visits to the optician and including one prescription with astigmatism that she has never had.


Francine Eisner 16 Jan 2004, 20:14

Hi TP,

Some optometrists believe in undercorrecting vision. In some people, wearing glasses seems to make the eyes a bit lazy and then they continue to need stronger and stronger prescriptions.

From what I understand, your niece is beyond the age when true myopia commonly develops. By this I mean the form of myopia that involves axial elongation. It is likely that she has at least some eyestrain. She could use some therapeutic measures to increase the capacity of her eyes if she chooses to. She is probably developing some accommodative infacility, a sign of presbyopia. It is not all that early; presbyopia commonly is noticed around age 40. It sometimes manifests as difficulty in the distance, sometimes near, and sometimes at all distances. If your niece is interested in therapeutic measures instead of glasses, she might take a look at the Vision Training thread on this board.

Cheers,

Francine

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/focus_on_vision_training/


Tammy 16 Jan 2004, 18:29

Well, i finally had my Fluorescein Angiogram today. My mom and i watched a short video about it, and then the optical technician put drops in my eyes 3 different times. After that, she took me into a smaller room and took pictures, then the ophthalmologist came in and injected fluorescein dye into a vein in my arm. After about 10 seconds or so, the technician took more pictures, while i was looking at another light. Finally, she took the last of the pictures, let me go. I won't know the results of the test until around February 10th, as the office i went to sends their x-rays out of town to be developed. I will keep you informed though!


TP 16 Jan 2004, 18:14

My niece recently came back from an eye exam where she gained a prescription of -0.75 and -0.50, no cylinder. She had been complaining of not being able to see the tv clearly at night and had trouble with reading road signs. The optometrist at the time said he wouldn't push glasses as she was well inside the legal requirement for driving. I suggested she go back and get the prescription filled but she is reluctant to go against the optometrist. My question is this, if she is having trouble reading road signs why would the optometrist hold back in suggesting correction. My neice is in her early 30's.


Nashreen 14 Jan 2004, 13:41

Andrew - thanks for the good wishes, which I only picked up today. I went for my CL checkup yesterday and - instead of the -1.75 and -3 lenses I'd been prescribed - came out with -2.25 for each eye. Quite a significant difference, as the optician was ready to admit. I have to say she was quite concerned that she felt she'd got it so wrong. On the first test the autorefractor read -4, yesterday she re-did it and it said -3. Anyway I'm alot happier with this prescription and tomorrow I have to go back (again) so she can re-do the glasses prescription and, as she said, tweak it to the nearest -0.25 to get the best fit. Phew, this has been a bit of a nightmare and I'll be glad when it's over. I was sort of nervous to go in there yesterday and say that I thought the prescription was wrong but now I'm so glad that I did :) If anyone else is ever in doubt they should say so.

As I've still had a -1 increase in my prescription I'll ask her how much more I'll need to wear these. She guessed that the glasses prescription will be around -2.50 but that's what she wants to fine tune tomorrow.

Nash


Tammy 14 Jan 2004, 01:37

Well, my angiography has been rescheduled for an earlier date this time. My mother wants to go with me to it, and she's going to be out of town on the 23rd of January. Now it's scheduled for this Friday, January 16th, at 2:00 p.m. It will NOT be rescheduled again! I know, that's what i said last time, but this time i'm positive. Oh, btw i've got insurance coverage again! Yay! I will keep you all informed.


Andrew 12 Jan 2004, 13:20

Good luck for tomorrow, Nashreen. I can't really help with your question, except to say that if your glasses Rx contains an astigmatism correction, this can cause a few problems getting it right in CLs. Do let us know the outcome.


Myhopeinhere 12 Jan 2004, 03:54

AJ

glad to hear things are going well,when are you planning on medical school?

how are your eyes now with the risk of detachments it must be some concern?

sorry for being nosey...lol


pete 11 Jan 2004, 20:33

Aj - I'm glad. i WAsn't quite ready to have things evaporate as they tend to do on a motivated type thread. You could probably be less literal and I less sensitive - so there - just checking in - want you to be, well, you know . . .


callimico 11 Jan 2004, 20:18

To "guest"-

I too have a problem with day/night vision differences. My r. eye pupil does not constrict as much as my l. eye in bright light. For years, I would get Rx the same in both eyes, which is OK for night, but for my L. eye --WAY too strong for day.

When I was a child I had some illness--probably a virus-- that left me with a stiff neck and tilted head for several months. I think the right side of my face was somehow affected--I have a "crooked" smile on the right side too. Maybe some sort of slight nerve damage. Perhaps this causes the r. eye pupil to be "lax" also.


AJ 11 Jan 2004, 18:25

Ah, sorry pete. I guess I sometimes take things too literally. Stomping and toe grinding was a great way to get a response or to start a dialogue. I was not annoyed!

Aliena

Eric: I graduated in May 2003 and I am now in Graduate School, working on my M.S. I am thinking of going to Medical School.


pete 10 Jan 2004, 12:36

Sorry AJ.

The stomping was meant in a celebratory fashion - like a champagne christening.


Nashreen 10 Jan 2004, 11:12

I was due to have the contact lense checkup yesterday after my test on 23 December, but the optician was off sick so I'm hanging on till next Tuesday now. Because I was due for the checkup I wore the -2 and -3.50 contacts to work on Friday and it was a weird sensation because I'm still sure the right eye is wrong. If I cover my left I can see okay with the right, but the two of them together isn't. I'm really apprehensive about this checkup on Tuesday. Anyone any idea what might be going on here?


myhopeinhere 09 Jan 2004, 23:57

Aliena.

Are you still in college or are you now concentrating on a career now,been away for ages so missed all the past posts?


Francine Eisner 09 Jan 2004, 20:22

Hi Tod,

It is very likely that your cornea was damaged and that, like me, your cornea once healed had a less-than-perfect shape for refracting properly. The cornea is responsible for 43% of an eye's refractive, or light-bending ability. Therefore it is the prime suspect when astigmatism is present. Other factors that can contribute to astigmatism are irregularities in the lens or vitreous matter, but in cases of eye injury one tends to look at the cornea first.

Fran


Tod 09 Jan 2004, 17:44

when I was 9 I noticed I might need glasses. Around this time I got hit in my left eye while sliding down hill on the ice one day by someone comming up hill. I had a lot of pain in this eye for several hours afterwards. Also, I am farsighted L: +2.25 R: +2 and need reading adds of +1.75 today. But in my left eye I also have astigmatism : -1.75 @ 1.20 deg.. Could my astigmat eye be due to that injury?


Francine Eisner 09 Jan 2004, 15:05

Hi guest,

Your accident sounds very similar to mine. Afterwards my OD told me I had 5 little scars on my cornea, where the shards of metal had been. I fortunately healed with no scarring whatsover (He said that I absorb scar tissue) but the "topography" of my cornea had been altered, and the result has been some astigmatism. And just like you, the injured eye had also been the dominant eye.

Your observations about your eyesight right now are very interesting. I hope that you are taking care to improve your nutrition and otherwise safeguard your vision now. You are at risk for cataracts now, too, just as I am.

Best regards,

Francine

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/focus_on_vision_training/


guest 09 Jan 2004, 06:50

Francine,

With respect to long term effects of an injury:

I injured my right eye 25 years ago. Immediately after the accident I went to an opthamologist who removed small wire fragments that were, unfortunately, embedded in the center of the eye. The injury healed without complications.

For years the only reminder of the injury came when I had eye exams and the doctor would remark on the scar. Although it is in the center of the field of vision the scarring was not so bad that my vison was impaired beyond one line on the eyechart.

It has only been the last five years or so that the injury has become an annoyance, probably because my accomodation is starting to decline.

Apparently the scar flattened a small part of the front of the eye. In bright light, when the iris is contracted and more vision occurs through the center of the eye , I become less nearsighted in that eye. In fact, I become slightly farsighted, so that my near vision is significantly blurred when I read in bright light. The distance correction

(-1d)that works well at night actually makes my vision in the injured eye worse in bright sunlight. And the close correction (+1.5d) isn't enough in bright light. Unlike most people with aging (53 yrs old) eyes, I like to turn down the light when reading because it makes my vision better in the injured eye.

If both my eyes reacted the same I probably wouldn't notice the problem, but since they don't I often feel an imbalance. Essentially, I need two pairs of glasses for balanced vision: one for bright light and one for dim light. I have tried to get my eye doctors to think creatively about how to solve this problem (I suggested photo sensitive lenses) but they don't seem interested in dealing with anything but a standard refraction.

I expect that the effects of the injury would be less noticable if it hadn't been the dominant eye that was affected.


AJ 09 Jan 2004, 06:44

Hi Eric and Don,

Very nice to hear from the both of you too! Aliena


Don 09 Jan 2004, 05:09

AJ (Aliena),

Good luck with your eyes... I go back to chatting with you in the year 2001, when you were an undergrad in Champaign, when Eyescene was much different than it is today.

I followed the stories of you and your sisters back then. Nice to see you back.


Myhopeinhere 08 Jan 2004, 22:13

Great reading your posts Aliena,hope things work out for you in the future and your CVA stays constant.

I remember chatting to you in the days of the contact and glasses scenario and the struggles you had.

Eric


AJ 08 Jan 2004, 18:31

pete:

Answer to the second question: No, I don't think the dynamics, etc. have changed too much. I still have to wear very strong glasses and people don't realize that I can see so much better or didn't realize how poorly I could see before the operation. Many people did know that my vision was not too good, even with the thick coke bottle glasses. Except for my family, they do realize how much better it must be for me, as they pretty much knew of my visual limitations. They have always been very supporative and many friends too. This always helped. For example, my night vision was never very good and I didn't like to go out by myself at night and people would go with me and help me. My mother and father think it is like a miracle for me to be able to see so much better, even though I still have to wear very strong glasses. They know how my prescription was always changing and how I needed so many new glasses. My mother could usually tell when it was time for me to go the the doctor. My dating has not changed, as I have had a steady boy friend for a couple of years. A university friend that also wears strong glasses, but his glasses have high plus lenses instead of high minus lenses, like me, and he also does not wear contacts. I don't know whether he really realizes how much better I can now see. He says he does, but ... I think it is difficult to really understand, unless you experience it.

Yes, maybe I would like to be an ophthmalogist. I certainly have had my eyes examined enough to know what it is all about and have had many conversations with my Drs about my eyes, vision, how the glasses help the vision, etc. and I have read quite a lot about eyes, corrections, diseases, etc. that I might have a head start.


AJ 08 Jan 2004, 18:03

pete:

No, I did not stomp or toe grind any of my old glasses. I have great respect for glasses, because without them, I would have been blind much of my life and with them I had vision that did allow me to do many things that without them I could not do. Sure, it was not perfect, but many things are not perfect. I was always happy to get new glasses and stronger lenses that let me see better, clearer, and sharper. As I have said, as a little girl, I did not want to take my glasses off, as it was quite bad to only have very blurred vision in which nothing could be made out. I did get to a point, some time in high school, that I would take my glasses off to rest my eyes and be in my own very blurred world. Sometimes that was nice. But then I would want to see what was going on and I would put my glasses on. It almost always seemed like a miracle to be able to see again.


Terri in VA 08 Jan 2004, 16:48

Nashreen - Might have them check your base curve. I have been in and out of contacts because they were uncomfortable that I would wear my glasses and I finally got a doctor who after I told him it felt like they were inside out that he said that it wasnt and then tried a different BC and it was wonderful. Just my expreience.


pete 08 Jan 2004, 14:53

AJ - Fantastic on all counts! I wonder if you've given one of your old pairs a good stomping and toe grinding.

Have you considered ophthalmology? And, oh yea, Has the dynamic etc. with family and friends changed . . . and, has this sightedness and new look changed your dating?

pete


AJ 08 Jan 2004, 13:40

pete:

Oh yes, my "good sighted fortune" has changed a lot of things. I am now in grad school, just finished the first semester, and I have started a research project for my M.S. Because research requires the use of your eyes so much, my increased acuity, and the lower amount of minification that my new glasses have, and the flexibility of having trifocals in one pair of glasses that give the use of both eyes together, depth perception, and some peripheral vision, all really makes a big difference. The trifocals are a bit thick and heavy, but my optician did a really good job and they fit really well and are quite comfortable. The thickness does not really bother me, as I have had thick coke bottle glasses ever since I can remember. With my increased acuity, I may yet consider going to medical school.

I don't really know what other things you had in mind for good fortune. The very big thing, of course, is the 20/20 CVA that I have for my left eye and the 20/40 CVA for my right eye, which is not too bad when you consider that I was less than 20/200- in that eye 6 months ago. I never thought, however, that I would ever see 20/20 in my life.

It was somewhat narrowing to have my vision deteroriate so much and the surgery had its risks with it as the alternative solution. But, it seemed to be either surgery or blindness. But, that is why I held off until after graduation. I still have to be careful, as I can, about retinal detachments. But, so far, no problems. They gave me temporary glasses right after the surgery (a couple of days) and then 6 weeks later, after things had healed, they gave me the new "permanent" glasses (trifocals) that are so wonderful.


Francine Eisner 08 Jan 2004, 12:48

Thanks for the link, "guest."

Yeah, I wasn't wearing eye protection, either. Pretty stupid of all of us, if you ask me...

Fran


pete 08 Jan 2004, 12:41

AJ - Congratulations! I'm really happy for you!!! That must have been a harrowing experience a year ago, not only the rapid increases but then to undertake questionable surgery.

I hadn't realized that you finished school. Congrats! I imagine getting behind the wheel of a fast car will be pretty cool! Has your good 'sighted' fortune changed other things for you? pete


AJ 08 Jan 2004, 12:05

Hi pete:

Yes, I have tried contacts twice. The first time I was 13 and had just gotten glasses with myodisc lenses. I think that my Rx was LE -20.50D, -3.5D and RE -23.00D, -3.00D, so my Dr suggested contacts. They had to be the hard kind because of the high Rx. They hurt almost immediately when I put them in and I could only wear them for 3-4 hrs at a time and my vision was not all that good because of the astigmatism. My eyes hurt and watered after wearing them for only 2 hrs. I also had another thing happen. One would all of a sudden pop off, especially if I would wear and tolerate them too long (3-4 hrs). With my poor eyesight, I would usually not find them. This started to occur frequently. One time they both popped off and I was blind. Fortunately, I had my glasses with me, but I did not find them. I have allergies and my corneas seem to be quite sensitive. So, contacts were more bother and cost than they were worth and I stopped wearing them all through high school. I did try again when I started in the university. I had another Dr, and she recommended contacts and glasses combination. The contacts wouldn't be as strong and the glasses would not be as strong. This had advantages, as I could have glasses with trifocals and and astigmatism correction and this would greatly expand my visual capabilities. But, I had the same problems with the contacts. The contacts had to be the hard kind to get up to -10D correction and they seemed to hurt even more than before and I could only tolerate them for a few hours. So, because I had to wear the thick regular glasses most of the time anyway, I went back to using them all of the time and finished out my university studies wearing myodiscs.

Recently, I have had a change in my situation. The past year and a half, I was going essentially blind and my prescription seemed to be increasing constantly, with less, and less visual acuity. This was caused by the thickening of the lenses in my eyes and I was up to -30D and -35D and then it increased to -35 and -40D last February, with 20/100 and 20/200 CVA. The thickness of the lenses in my eyes had increased substantially and the felt that I was on my way to becoming myopically blind. They decided to remove the thick lenses in my eyes last May. Even with the removal of the lenses, I am still quite myopic, but the Rx is much less, LE -18.00, -2.5D 180, RE -22.50, -2.5D 180. But, the really great thing is that I have 20/20 CVA in my LE and 20/40 CVA in my RE. They don't really like to do this type of operation for high myopes, because of the increased potential for retinal detachments, unless the individual is going blind, as I was. I now have regular glasses with trifocals. The lenses are quite thick, but I have a much expanded and improved visual use of my eyes with them. Even some peripheral vision that you don't get with myodiscs. I also have glasses with myodisc lenses with the full distance correction that I sometimes use to watch TV, movies, sports, going for a drive in the car, etc, but most of the time, I wear the trifocals. I haven't learned to drive yet, but with my much improved CVA, I may try. Maybe this summer. Aliena


D-W-V 08 Jan 2004, 12:02

Jon:

I think you really should be asking those questions of your wife's eye doctor, and that she should get a thorough medical checkup to make sure there isn't some underlying cause. If she isn't already using bifocals or reading glasses, now would be a good time to start. The strain of accomodation could be contributing to the increased myopia.


Spexlovinguy 08 Jan 2004, 10:15

AJ - What is your prescription ? (Sorry if I missed it if you posted it before)


guest 08 Jan 2004, 10:13

this link points to a page about a boy who got hit in the eye with a paintball. He developed a cataract and now has to wear bifocals and has to be monitored for glaucoma.

http://www.theindependent.com/stories/070699/new_paintball06.html


pete 08 Jan 2004, 09:38

AJ - I recently had a correspondence with a girl with a "minus 20 extremely bad" (as she put it) script. Even though she can wear contacts with the full RX, she likes wearing her glasses primarily because "I have guys stop me all the time, loving my glasses" (whereas, if I understand correctly, you honor their gift of sight). She revealed further along in our conversation that she wears glasses over contacts, that is, a partial minus script in each ("over - 10 glasses"). Has that not worked for you?


Francine Eisner 07 Jan 2004, 21:20

Hi Specs,

Thanks for writing.

I wonder if anyone's eye is ever quite the same after an accident. I think it's very likely that there is at least SOME connection between your accident and your medical problems later on.

I myself was hit in the eye with a chunk of metal, propelled with great force. There were some pieces of metal embedded in my cornea and I had to have them surgically removed. I actually had TWO operations to remove them, and my eye was bandaged for a few weeks. Afterward my cornea was "weird" for awhile but I pretty much ignored it. It turned out that my brain was ignoring that eye, too. I was later on found to have binocular vision problems due to the shock of being hit. (This was corrected with VT lessons, which is why I post about it all the time.)

My cornea healed really well but I do have SOME astigmatism in that eye even now. I am really lucky but sometimes my eye feels a bit dry and gritty and then I use eyedrops. I know it's really minor, but this never happens with the other eye. I'm also at great risk for cataracts because of the accident. But I'm keeping my fingers crossed...

Cheers,

Fran


specs4ever 07 Jan 2004, 21:09

Hi Francine. When I was around 12 y/o I ran into a piece of wire that was sticking out of a concrete wall. This wire was used to tie the forms together prior to pouring the concrete. The wire poked into my eye, but missed the cornea, and after a few weeks of having my eye patched, I was Ok again. However, in my teens I found that I had become nearsighted in that eye. I have had a love affair with glasses ever since, although I resisted wearing glasses myself, and I passed my driver's licence eye test by peering through my fingers of my left(good)eye.

For most of my life I have resisted wearing glasses with my true correction.

Recently, however, I went for a simple eye exam, and this turned into an emergency visit to an opthalmologist, because the pressure in my right eye was out of sight. My ducts that drain the eye were blocked, much like in glaucoma, (although it isn't). I have to use special medication to brin the internal pressure down, or I could loose the sight in my eye. The doctor was very interested in my childhood accident, although he didn't indicate if this was the cause of the problem.


Francine Eisner 07 Jan 2004, 20:48

Anyone here ever suffered an eye accident? I did, in 1986.

I would like to hear from anyone who suffered an eye accident (Such as a blow to the eye, corneal abrasion, etc.) and what your results were, initial and long-lasting.

Do you now wear glasses etc. (or so you've been told) because of this accident?

Thanks...

Cheers,

Francine


Tammy 07 Jan 2004, 15:19

Hi All. I have an update on my situation for you. My appointment for Fluoresein Angiography that was scheduled for January 13th, has been rescheduled again. This time i received a phone call from the Ophthalmologist's office this morning, asking me if i had insurance yet, and when i said no, the person asked me what i wanted to do concerning my appointment. They offered a couple different options. I could keep the appointment as it was scheduled for next Tuesday, hoping that i would be covered by insurance by then, or i could move the appointment ahead and see what the insurance people were going to do, etc. I chose the option to move the appointment up to January 23rd @ 2:00 pm. I also told her that i really didn't want to reschedule it again. Anyway, i will keep you informed and updated.


Jon 07 Jan 2004, 05:16

My wife has worn glasses for many years. She got her first pair aged 5 and wore them full time aged 6, she will be 50 later this year. She got a new pair recently and they appear much stronger than her previous ones. (Seem thick at the edges). At first I put it down to them being a dufferent shape, more elongated but looking more closely You can now pick up rings in the centre of the lens. her glasses are high index.

Her mother has also worn glasses for many years, she is 75 and started wearing them at 18 but her glasses are extremely thick, I would estimate at least 20mm and are bi-focal. She obviously has difficulties as there are always large print books around and she needs to sit very near the TV. My wifes grandmother was registered blind age at appox. 60

My wifes prescription is currently -7.25 right and -7.75 left, 2years ago it was -6.5 right and -7.0 left. I found an old prescription from 15 years ago and it was -4.5 right -6.25 left.

Questions

1 Is her prescription considered strong

2 Is the change of prescription significant

3 Given the history, will her sight deteriorate at an increasing rate

4 Is it likely she will eventually need even stronger glasses than her mother as she needed them at a much earlier age


D-W-V 07 Jan 2004, 00:52

Another Guest:

Just a wild guess, but autorefractors aren't perfect. An autorefractor got the cylinder axis wrong on my right eye, off by around 15 degrees. I've only got 0.75 cylinder so I can live with the error, but the improvement in acuity is noticable if I rotate that lens to the correct axis. The stronger the cylinder, the more critical it is to get the axis correct.

From what I've read, the "old-fashioned" trial frames can still be the most accurate way to do a refraction, especially in higher prescriptions, so maybe you could gently hint to your eye doctor to try that instead of using the high-tech machines.


AJ 06 Jan 2004, 19:24

Another guest: Yes, we might be able to understand your problem, if you would post your prescription. I do understand that you have unusual astigmatism that is very high. How thick are your glasses and what is the sphere correction and the cyclinder correction. I can certainly unerstand that you must wear your glasses all of the time to see clearly if the astigm is extremely high. It also must have unusual axis for each eye to have top and bottom thick for one eye and left and right thick for the other eye. I am surprised that you could go without your glasses at all. You must have missed many things around you when you didn't have them on. It is too bad that you didn't like wearing glasses if your eyes are as poor as you describe.

I also have poor eyesight, different than yours, as I am extremely nearsighted (progressive congential myopia) and have had to have a strong negative correction, but also have high astigmatism and have had to wear glasses since I was 1 yr old. My prescription continued to increase, needing a new Rx every year and sometimes more often, but I actually liked my glasses, as I could see things with them and without them I was essentially blind. I did not want to take my glasses off when I was a little girl and I still don't take them off very often. I tried contacts a couple of times and coundn't tollerate them and they were a big, big bother. I am now 22.


Plus one 06 Jan 2004, 18:45

RJ - Don't you think there is a lack of hyperopic girls in asia esp. in India?

What can be the reason?


guest 29 Dec 2003, 21:22

Another Guest - What is the prescription of your glasses?


another guest 29 Dec 2003, 21:04

How nice to come across such an interesting site. I have read many of the entries but did not find one that related directly to my question. I've been in glasses since I was a child, and is often the case, for many years I'd wear them only when I reallllly needed to, meaning they were off more than on. I rebelled at having to wear them. Interesting I could do that, because at every yearly exam (then and now) I was told that they were to be worn all the time, instructed that they be the first thing I put on in the morning and the last thing I take off at night. It took a while but I finally figured out that worked better than my way. I have an unusually high amount of astigmatism (in the "extreme range" according to what I've been reading on the computer)and always had a myopic correction and a hyperopic correction. My hyperopic correction has been steadily increasing since my early thirties (now 41). Guess that's technically presbyopia ? Finally, my question;

The autorefractor ALWAYS identifies that I need a plus correction but the first time that was made into glasses for me I couldn't see beyond a few feet, but up close was terrific. (He just started to auto refract me a few years ago- prior to that it was all with the regular chart). I went back to my eye doc, and again the autorefractor said i needed plus. We had to do the clicking machine (sorry, forgot the name) to get my distance correction. I am seen by my eye doc every 10 or so months, and each time I autorefract for plus, but it still only allows me to read and I need to use the other exam to get a minus. Any ideas why this is? I still feel somewhat as I did as a child, that being that I do not love wearing my glasses, primarily due to the thickness of the astigmatic correction--in one eye the lenses are thick at the top and the bottom and the other eye they thicken at the nose and the temple area. But I cannot see clearly without them, and I wouldn't trade them for the world!


Guest2 28 Dec 2003, 11:51

Nashreen,

If you could not even read the second line on the eyechart, I think it is actually quite likely that your -3.50 prescription is correct. It may just take some time to get used to such a large prescription change, which would be normal.


Nashreen 24 Dec 2003, 09:33

Yes, RJ, I know and the increase has worried me a lot. The left eye is fine and though I can see clearly through the right it isnt comfortable it feels as though its unbalanced. I dont know how to describe it but I think the power might be too strong. Are you an ophthalmic professional? Do you know if that might be a symptom? I ordered some glasses and they were very concerned that the two lenses would look different, ie the right so much thicker, so Ive ordered 33% thinner lenses. I have another check-up on 9 January this morning I called to say that the right eye was very uncomfortable yesterday and not to put the glasses order through that was even stronger for the right eye: -3.50. I think that over Christmas Ill try the 1.75 lenses in both eyes and see if thats better. My right eye has always been worse so it may be a bit more than 2, but I really dont think its 3.50. What worries me most is that this prescription would probably mean Id have to wear them much more than I do now :(


RJ 24 Dec 2003, 06:23

Hi Nashreen,

You said in the previous post that your previous prescription was -1.25 and -1.50. If your current refraction is accurate, you have increased by -1D in the left eye and

-2D in the right. Thats a BIG increase - especially in the right eye. No wonder you were having trouble with even the top line. I doubt you could even see the top line with your right eye before (w/o squinting or any such tricks), let alone identify the letters

But is the vision in the right eye still blurry at distance? If so, it might need a stronger Rx. Its normal for the contact lens Rx to be -0.25D less than the glasses Rx when the latter goes over -3.00D. Or it might be a problem with the lens fit.

Take care.

RJ


Pinkspecs 23 Dec 2003, 16:24

Go back and complain.


NASHREEN 23 Dec 2003, 15:39

... and my right eye still feels like it's pulling even after taking the lenses out several hours ago :(


nashreen 23 Dec 2003, 15:37

I went for the test today. The result was L: -2.00 -0.25 x 150 R: -3.50

The left eye is great but I think the right eye is wrong so I'd appreciate some advice, especially if anyone has had a problem like this before. The optician scared me a bit because she seemed almost surprised, or like I couldn't be bothered to try and read the chart. Then she said it was a big increase and that maybe I had some corneal deposits (whatever they are). Anyway she settled on this as a final prescription and I came away with some trial contact lenses that are L: -1.75 and R: -3.00 I've worn them this afternoon/evening but my right eye is very uncomfortable. So had a long chat with a friend tonight and I'm going to stop the order for the glasses.

I feel really uncomfortable about going back and saying that the right eye seems so wrong. I didn't much take to the optician - she seemed in a hurry and she had the next person waiting. She said she completely disagreed with the guy who'd done the contact lenses test last week, who'd apparently recorded a -0.50 increase rather than the -0/25 he said to me. This has made me so miserable tonight but I feel better that I'm going to call them and tell them tomorrow that I'm unhappy with the diagnosis.

I'm due for a contact lens check up on 9 January but I can't decide whether to tough it out with these or just cut my losses and go to someone else.

**Does anyone have any advice, PLEASE!!!***


guest 22 Dec 2003, 11:53

Nashreen,

perhaps you have to try with another

eye doctor, if this one can't make it sharp for you,

could be astigmatism or so,

best regards,

guest


RJ 22 Dec 2003, 00:44

Hi Nashreen,

Did you still have difficulty with the lines when the doc added the second pair of lenses in the trial frame? Then you need more than -0.25 increase, obviously. Maybe the person who will test you on Tuesday will know better - but I recommend that you COMPLAIN about bad distance vision to that person, ESPECIALLY if you are being fit for contacts, since if you are unhappy with contacts for whatever reason (be it as complex as dry eye problems or as simple as incorrect Rx) then you have to replace them, which is far more expensive than popping out the lenses in glasses and replacing just those.

Good luck for your upcoming eye test.

Cheers,

-RJ


Barb 20 Dec 2003, 06:44

Willy

No, I have had no problems at all with my eyes. I only had an eye exam because I was due for one. The only other thing I have noticed is my night vision isn't too good, I see halos around lights etc. No problems with reading, computer etc. Although I am curious as to what my vision will be like with my rx, I have decided to pospone getting it filled as I think I should do without for as long as I can. When I start having problems then I will get glasses.


Nashreen 20 Dec 2003, 04:23

Hello RJ, I'm in England. The test I had was part of an exam to see if I'd be suitable for contact lenses, maybe that's different. He gave me a pair of lenses that equalled my present prescription and it was with those that I had some difficulty with the top line, he put another pair of lenses in the trial frame. I guess that was the -0.25. I have to go back on Tuesday so they can do the proper eye test. I feel a bit uncomfortable about being insistent like you say but I do feel that my eyesight isn't as sharp as it could be.

I'm interested to hear about your approach, but his comment that a stronger prescription sometimes just makes things smaller not clearer made me wonder. He was a contact lens fitter, is it possible that he's not so well qualified to assess prescriptions? It will be interesting to see next week whether the uncorrected test backs up what he said.


RJ 19 Dec 2003, 20:09

Hi Nashreen,

Where are u from? In some countries (including India where I am myself) the eyechart in the optometrist's test room consists of only 3 lines - 6/12 (20/40) , 6/9 (20/30) and 6/6 (20/20).

If you had ANY trouble with the first line (that is, 20/40) then you REALLY need an increase, and more than -0.25, definitely! I always ask for (and get) the prescription where the last line (20/20) is clear with each eye separately without any effort. Basically, you should DEMAND whatever prescription allows you to see 20/20 clearly and comfortably. Some docs are reluctant to increase the minus, but if it needs to be increased (i.e. if the present glasses are too weak) then I believe you should not leave the office until you are satisfied with the clarity of your vision.

One trick to tell if you could benefit from stronger

lenses is to tilt your present glasses forward about 30 degrees. If this action noticeably improves distance clarity, then you definitely need an increase. If not, then it is unlikely that you need one.

Best of luck,

RJ


Nashreen 19 Dec 2003, 13:44

Hello Brian -16! I don't know if it was the 20/20 line either - it wasn't the chart with the big E but one with alot of letters (perhaps 7 or 8 letters in the top line). The top line was difficult for me.


Brian-16 19 Dec 2003, 12:10

Nashreen-I do not know whether you are seeing the 20/20 line or what.But I have noticed the same thing when I get examined.First the doctor will make the line smaller then back off to the point where I sometimes think I am struggling.


nashreen 19 Dec 2003, 12:03

I had a test today. Before I went I felt that my prescription might be in need of updating - it's -1.25 and -1.50. The eye doc said that he could increase my prescription by -0.25 but sometimes it only made things smaller not clearer. I don't really understand what he means - even with my glasses on it was obvious I was struggling with more than the first line of letters. It sounds like he was kinda reluctant to do that - is that usual and with all the effort to see the first line of letters would the increase really be just -.25? I was thinking my vision was horribly bad.


leelee 18 Dec 2003, 07:45

abeflow,

I vote for the astigmatism causing the headaches, the farsightedness causing the tiredness, and both conditions causing the eyestrain.

Plus, once you get used to wearing the glasses, your brain doesn't want to have to retool to see without them I think.


abeflow 17 Dec 2003, 22:49

my rx +1.00 +50 90 i wear them all the time. if i take them off i get headaches eyestrain and get very tired

what do you think causes the headaches

is it because i have a slight astigmatsm or that im farsieghted?


willy 17 Dec 2003, 15:17

Barb -- Glad to hear you've had an exam and gotten a prescription. I think it's interesting that you were told the prescription was "mainly" for astigmatism, when there is a "larger" +1.00 sphere component of the scrip, which will correct for farsightedness. You did not mention this, but have you been having any headache or eyestrain when reading? Very, very generally speaking, this is what the +1.00 would help with, whereas the -0.5 (which is called cylinder or "cyl") will primarily help with the blurring you've noticed because of the astigmatism. (I'll leave it to the real experts here to expound further or correct me.)

Did your eye doctor recommend when you should wear the glasses? Again, very generally speaking, with this scrip, you might find you want to wear them for reading, as well as for distances, but not necessarily all the time (though there are a number of folks who post here regularly with similar scrips who do so).

In any event, please keep us updated!


Barb 17 Dec 2003, 05:41

Thanks everyone. Had an eye test today and ended up with a mild rx mainly for slight atigmatism (that's what I was told) The rx reads +1.00 -.50 40 + 1.00 -.50 140 Will maybe order from O4L


Colin 17 Dec 2003, 05:36

See vision post


RJ 17 Dec 2003, 03:18

Thanks for your thoughts, leelee.

BTW, does anyone know whether there is a hereditary factor associated with how early or how late presbyopia occurs? Surely some people have their accommodation lasting longer than others. (I am not counting myopes who take off their glasses for reading, or people with extra small pupils, or people with one myopic and one emmetropic eye)

Are there really any people at 50 or more who have normal pupil sizes and can read comfortably WITH THEIR CORRECT DISTANCE GLASSES? (or w/o glasses if they happen to be 0.00 or nearly so IN BOTH EYES). Comments, anyone?

Almost all the people I know got bifocals or readers around 40 - some in late 30's, others in early 40's, everyone by 50. My parents both got presbyopia by early 40's.

Maybe the latitude where one lives in also matters.....


leelee 16 Dec 2003, 06:56

dOH! steering wheel! and other typos!


leelee 16 Dec 2003, 06:55

This is exactly what it's like when you are a little farsighted. It actually becomes irritating to drive at night without your glasses because all the break lights ahead get smeary looking and I oncoming lights get more irritating too. I would sometimes find myself gripping the stearing wheel so hard it made my hands ache - a reflection on the intense focus stare (squinting doesn't help me as much)

probably why Dad always got so crabby after a long drive (I always thought it was the squabbling in the back seat ...)


RJ 16 Dec 2003, 06:23

Lentifan: I don't notice the "dull days" thing with my present glasses. I think that dull days do not cause any real refractive change - they just expose the need for stronger minus if such a need exists. Any real emmetrope (0.00 refraction, normal vision) or properly corrected myope would not notice this.

On sunny days or in brightly lit rooms , the "depth-of-field" effect of a small pupil can cause one to feel that even slightly too weak prescriptions are adequate.

At night, I can wear my overminused pair of glasses and

relax (deaccommodate) my eyes, and signs in the distance (especially red ones) become quite blurred. Ideas, anyone?


Willy 15 Dec 2003, 20:59

Barb -- I have a slight astigmatism, and LEDs, especially at night, are the things that I notice will seem blurry to me at distance. Bottom line, of course, as anyone here would say, is that it's a good idea to get an eye exam. If you do, let us know the results!


Brian-16 15 Dec 2003, 13:44

RJ-Thanks for the information-the trick may work for me at my next exam....


Clare 15 Dec 2003, 12:23

Leelee - thanks for the link, I'll give it a go.

Lentifan - I'm with you on the dull days thing. It was a dismal day here on Saturday (grey, rainy) and I felt just the same. As myopic people, I understand, become more so in the dark then it does seem to make sense that any kind of reduced visibility has a similar effect.

And for anyone who's interested - I booked a test for next Monday. I wonder if I may end up filling the prescription that I was given almost two years ago which was a -0.25 increase on my current -2 (L) and -2.25 (R). We're being XP'd (I mean Windows XP) at work and I had to go to my initiation presentation this morning. Although it was interesting, I already have XP at home so knew alot of it, I did the eye test thing to keep myself awake. Result when wearing contacts: okay with the left, but not so good with the right. It fits with things I've noticed over the summer when friends have had sharper vision than mine. It's okay, I don't think I'm dangerous. Wonder if anyone else has had similar experiences - what happened?

Incidentally, I'm happy for it not to go up. With my rx I'm not too incapacitated without correction and can suffer the inconvenience if I choose to. Anyway, I'm off to India in January and that's a great place to buy good quality glasses at extraordinary prices ... at least it was this year.


RJ 15 Dec 2003, 03:43

Hi High Myope, Brian-16, thanks for your responses.

Brian-16, I got the first pair of glasses in Feb 1996, when I was 8. At the subsequent eyetests, I always answered honestly that the too strong lens did not make the letters clearer, only smaller and blacker. And one ingenious doctor actually thought of reducing my Rx a couple years ago (when I was 14) to see if I was overminused, and I was! The letters seemed slightly bigger, but just as clear through the weaker lens.

And I don't think that the trick of holding my eye back from the phoropter will work in my case. I believe it only works at all for Rxs at -4 and above, and to get any decent (-0.75D or more) increase, you have to be at least -8 or -9.


lentifan 15 Dec 2003, 02:12

In my limited experience, if your Rx is no longer quite right, one of the first signs is blurry LEDs, such as clocks, or the TV text pages. Just what Julian was saying, I suppose, really.

As to the darkness issue, I sometimes feel more shortsighted, as though I needed stronger specs, on overcast misty days. I mentioned this once to an optician but she didn't react to it. Is this just because everyone's vision is poorer in such conditions?


Julian 15 Dec 2003, 01:03

Hi Barb. I think LEDs are always difficult to read in the dark. On the other hand if you used to be able to read them OK it could be the first sign that your eyes are going off a bit as people's eyes do at your age. You could always have an eye test which is sensible from time to time anyway.

Love and kisses, Jules.


Barb 14 Dec 2003, 22:22

Hi

I just read that post about the alarm clock looking blurry. I have just discovered that I have trouble seeing led displays in the dark. What does that actually mean? My eyesight seems ok apart from this.(I am 40). Sorry if I sound ignorant but I am in this subject.

Thanks anyone.


leelee 14 Dec 2003, 14:28

Clare, you can download & print the pdf chart on this page:

http://www.i-see.org/eyecharts.html

It seems to reflect pretty accurately what I just tested for.


Clare 14 Dec 2003, 13:39

Leelee's post on the 'Multifocals ...' thread reminds me that the alram clock is looking very blurry now that it's the time of year when I only see it in the dark. Must be time for another test - in fact it's almost two years. I've never had this problem with the alarm display before. I fancy getting an idea of whether I'm up for an increase before I go. Does anyone rate the online tests - appreciating that they can't replicate proper test conditions of course!


High Myope 14 Dec 2003, 10:23

RJ -- Sorry, I just noticed that my first line has a typo. It should read, "I don't know WHY it happens, but..."


Bian-16 14 Dec 2003, 10:18

RJ-Sorry about the other non-post below I hit the enter by mistake.At what age did you get the first pair of glasses ? Next time I get an rx I am going to try for stronger lenses by leaning back a little in the machine.My vision is 20/20 in one eye and 20/25 in the other and I do strain to see those letters on the chart in the doctors office.


Brian-16 14 Dec 2003, 10:14


High Myope 14 Dec 2003, 10:08

RJ -- I don't know what it happens, but I can confirm that it does. When my own myopic progression stopped at 20 or 21, I missed seeing things brilliantly each time my minus increased, and figured out that by holding my eyes back a little from the phoropter, I could get the doctor to increase my minus even thouygh I didn't need it. I loved this effect. Unfortunately, my eyes were still young enough to adjust to the stronger lenses, so six or eight months later, I had to do it again. Between 21 and 24, I added 2 to 3 diopters to my RX this way, and stopped only because I became alarmed at how thick my lenses were becoming.


RJ 14 Dec 2003, 09:26

Does anyone know why "overminused" (too strong) glasses for myopes make things look more intense ( letters look smaller and bolder) than the "correct" glasses?

I still have my first ever glasses R -2.25 L -1.75 with some astigmatism, which are about -0.75D stronger than my present correct Rx

R -1.50 L -1. When I wear these, things in the distance seem somewhat blurry unless I "tense" my eyes a bit , and when I do this, things clear up and also look more intense than with the full power glasses. Why that?

Does the same effect occur for mildly "underplussed" hyperopes or emmetropes who wear low minus glasses?

I'm 16 by the way, so I could easily use these glasses fulltime without too many problems , but for the fact that the frame is too nerdy :)


Tammy 09 Dec 2003, 14:22

Still, et al, i hope you have a wonderful holiday season and remember the true Reason for the Season! Peace, Tammy.


Tammy 09 Dec 2003, 14:20

Still, thank you for your support and we will see what happens when i have my test!


still 09 Dec 2003, 11:16

Good luck, Tammy! I hope your holiday season is good, and the test is positive and helpful.


Tammy 09 Dec 2003, 07:31

Hi. I just wanted to let you all know that i have rescheduled my appointment with the ophthalmologist for having the angiogram done on my eyes. It's now scheduled for January 13, 2004 @ 1:00 pm. I will still keep you updated on what happens with that.


Joseph A. 09 Dec 2003, 06:54

Autumn:

It sounds right to me.

---Joe


Autumn 09 Dec 2003, 01:49

I don't remember where I got this information from, but I'll share it with all of you.

-.5 = 20/30 = low myopia

-01 = 20/50

-02 = 20/150

-03 = 20/250

-04 = 20/400

-05 = 20/500

-06 = 20/650 = moderate myopia

-07 = 20/800

-08 = 20/1000

-09 = 20/1300

-10 = 20/1400

-11 = 20/1500

-12 = 4/400 = high myopia

-13 = 3/450

-14 = 3/375

-15 = 2/275

-16 = 2/300 = severe myopia

-17 = 1/200

-18 = 1/300

-19 = 1/400

-20 = 1/500 = very severe myopia

-25 to -30 = extremely severe myopia;

low vision

-30 to -40 = extraordinarily severe

myopia; severe low vision

above -40 = functionally blind;

extremely severe low vision

Is this information correct??


JPC 08 Dec 2003, 22:05

Thank you - does anyone know which letters actually relate to what Cluena says?


High Myope 08 Dec 2003, 19:18

Ckuena, that may not be accurate. I've found that when my kids see 20/50, their prescriptions usually increase by about one full diopter.


Cluena 08 Dec 2003, 19:04

20/100= +/-1.00

20/200= +/-/2.00

20/300= +/-3.00

and so on.


JPC 08 Dec 2003, 13:51

Can anyone tell me what the various numbers/lines on the eye test chart equate to in terms of a prescription please?


D-W-V 22 Nov 2003, 19:47

The thing is, if the refraction or autorefractor gives him different numbers than my old glasses or the previous prescription, he should investigate further. I shouldn't have to be the one to figure out that rotating my right lens about 40 degrees makes text sharper.

There's something slightly suspicious about a cylinder correction that doesn't change a single digit from one eye exam to another. No measurement with analog instruments on an optical system made of meat (ok, meat byproducts) can possibly be that consistent.


Daffy 22 Nov 2003, 17:11

For the health of your eyes it's best to tell the optometrist what you are experiencing. I don't think that they look at it from the view that people want stronger glasses. But if you feel you need them, then that is exactly what they are there for...to give you the best RX possible for your eyes.


D-W-V 22 Nov 2003, 15:56

I think eye doctors tend to give patients what they ask for, and if you don't specifically ask for better distance vision, you may not get it. It's like they're guided by the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it rule" when it comes to changing your prescription.

Optometrist Benjamin Freed, O.D., at banjoben.com writes "the examiner should not be influenced by the patients current eyeglass correction while performing the objective and subjective refractions, but should approach each eyes refractive state objectively." That implies that too many optometrists ARE influenced by the current prescription, even if it was flawed.

Here's his optometry web page:

http://www.banjoben.com/optometry_page.htm


Cath 22 Nov 2003, 10:34

Jo - I've noticed this too and will probably say so at my next exam which will be soon. I've noticed that friends of mine (who wear glasses and who don't) can all see things better than me - from a ship on the horizon, yes I'm serious, to a company's list of departments on a big board. Like you I don't want to make it look like i "want" stronger glasses so I'd be interested to hear if anyone has been asked by or told their eye doc something similar.


High Myope 22 Nov 2003, 05:02

Jo -- I would be matter of fact. You may have become more myopic, or there may be some other factor causing you not to see as well as others. It's best to let your doctor diagnose the problem.


Jo 22 Nov 2003, 04:52

Hope someone here can give me some advice. I have glasses for distance, although I don't wear them all the time. Although most of the time its okay, there are times that I'm wearing them when other people can see things I can't. I'm probably not dangerous but should I mention this at my next exam and what should I say? I don't want it to look like I want stronger glasses because I don't really.


Mal 21 Nov 2003, 12:05

Rob - sorry to hear you're having some trouble getting used to how you see now. I'd imagine that you were used to wearing them quite a bit with your old prescription though? I'm -2.75 and I pretty much wear mine all the time.


Matt 21 Nov 2003, 11:10

Hi Rob. My presciption was about the same as yours when I started wearing my glasses all the time. I agree that with this kind of prescription it's hard to see things far away and, increasingly, close up (because of the astigmatism). Like you I didn't like having to wear them all the time for the first few days, but after three or four days I was quite happy wearing them and forgot about them. Go with full time wear, it will make everything so much clearer for you.


Contact lens spotters guide 20 Nov 2003, 15:34

At my job there is an attractive woman about 40 who works in the office. She has blue eyes that have that "poppy starey" look to them. She does not wear reading glasses at all and hold things 12" or closer to read , so she is not presbyopic at all for her age. I think I saw a soft lens ridge on her scalea but I can't be sure. But I would bet she is a CL wearer.

Tod


Alan 20 Nov 2003, 07:02

Rob - yeah, your prescription is a little higher than a lot of people's, but it's not really very high. Many people have must stronger glasses. Your statistics are probably right, but the statistic that says 25% of adults are nearsighted probably makes it seem like fewer people around you are nearsighted than there really are. There are a lot of contact lens wearers around you.

If you don't mind my saying, putting some punctuation in your posts would definitely help make them more readable. Just some periods (.) would be a big help.


rob 20 Nov 2003, 05:13

i also read that 70% op people have rx under -3 and only 10% have rx over minus 6 maybe thats why my glasses look so thick my rx of -3.50 also -1.75 stig together is -5.25 which i guess is higher than normal


rob 20 Nov 2003, 04:28

i did not wear them all the time but i seem to be much worse now and kind of stuck with these thick glasses before i could get around without them but now i really need them most peeple i see have much thinner glasses than me the higher astig in one of my eyes makes that one lense quite thick i hope i can getused to wearing thrse glasses


Mal 19 Nov 2003, 22:14

Rob, out of interest, how did you get on with your old prescription, did you not wear that all the time?


rob 19 Nov 2003, 19:49

you are right i cannot get along without glasses my rx did move up from -2.50 .75 astig so apreety big change my glasses are quite thick and people notice that my optical place said this is because you have a strong presciption they are poly but i guess i will get used to them


mattp 19 Nov 2003, 05:36

Rob--

My RX is slightly higher than yours (-3.75) but my astigmatism is like yours. I could not imagine not wearing my glasses full time. I'm confused by why you think you might be able to get along without glasses at a place like the mall. Is this a new RX, and you never wore glasses before? Or is it just wishful thinking that you could get along without glasses?

From everything I've read, this RX is not particularly strong. But to me, what difference does it make. Once one crosses the threshold where glasses are needed full time, the strength is pretty irrelevant.

God luck with the glasses--Matt


C;lay 18 Nov 2003, 20:25

Rob,

How old are you? Are you saying you cannot see the price tags with or without your glasses?


rob 18 Nov 2003, 17:40

the thing i noticed most my close vision got much worse sinced i moved up to this rx looking at price tags in stores i have to go right on top of it to see i feel really blind now


 18 Nov 2003, 16:02

Okay kinda repeated myself there lol! Its kinda late n I cant concentrate when im tired... sorry!


Aislinn 18 Nov 2003, 16:01

Rob

Mines slightly higher than yours but without any asig but I'm pretty useless without my glasses or conracts.

I dont think its seen as strong to some people but mines slightly higher than yours but without any asig and I'm pretty useless without my glasses or conracts... its quite strong I guess...


rob 18 Nov 2003, 15:50

hi my rx is -3.50 -1.75 astig and -3.25 -1.00 astig my vision is extremly blurry witout glasses walking in the mall everything is blurry cannot function without them is it me ore are these king of strong doc said i have high astig can anyone help me


Nicki 18 Nov 2003, 13:28

Yes PD in this context is prism diopter. It's a measure of how big the distance between the two images I see are. I do also have 9 DP built into my glasses (split left/right 5/4) but it would be too expensive to keep having my glasses changed every 6 weeks.

Does anybody know what the maximum DP is? I mean how bad could this get before it stops getting worse?


mikejames 17 Nov 2003, 15:08

thanks for the info. She is 40 ( sorry 39 ). the lenses are varifocals and seem to be gold coated judging by the cost. Why does she need varifocals?


Julian 16 Nov 2003, 23:15

Surprised she's been told she *needs* to wear them full time, though as D-W-V says they will improve her distance vision. Perhaps her eye doc has a bee in his bonnet like the one who ordered me into full time wear when I was 28. Mind you, with that +1.5 add they'll work wonders for her near vision and she may like to have that in place all the time rather than fish them out every time she wants to read something. How old is she?

Love and kisses, Jules.


D-W-V 16 Nov 2003, 20:07

What can't she see? Things that are close or small, like fine print or the LCD viewfinder of a digital camera.

Her distance vision isn't bad, but it would be a little clearer with glasses, because of the corrections for astigmatism.


mikeJames 16 Nov 2003, 17:12

My wife has just been told she needs to wear glasses full time and is a little shocked. her prescription is

le sp 0 cy -.75 80 degrees add + 1.5

re sp + 0.5 cy -.25 170 degrees add + 1.5

What I dont understand is what this means? What can she see? What can't she see and will the glasses make a big difference? Does she really need them.


Andrew 16 Nov 2003, 12:50

Thanks for the answers, chaps.

Sarah J: you will not know unless you have tried them, but the blur could be down to the astigmatism correction you require. What you have not told us is the angle of that correction (the number which follows the cylinder correction), as I suspect two different angles there could make it even harder to see clearly.


mattp 16 Nov 2003, 11:08

Nicki and Brian-16--

I had a fresnel prism stuck on the back of my left lens for about a month while the dr. determined if my eyes could adjust to it. I was 3 D prism, but things were quite blurry looking through it. I can imagine how blurry things must be for you, Nicki, with a much stronger prism.

The point of my posting is to say things are fine now that I have my new lens with the prism integrated into. There is some distortion, but things are not blurry. You should be able to drive, Brian, and see fine, Nicki!

Matt


Yako 16 Nov 2003, 09:21

I think that in this context PD means Prism Dioptrie. Each PD corresponds to an angular deflection of approximately 1/2 degree.


Priscilla 16 Nov 2003, 06:08

P.D. Means PUPILARY DISTANCE


Brian-16 16 Nov 2003, 05:29

Andrew-I beleive PD refers to the distance between your pupils.Like 62mm or 65mm.Very important figure on the rx..


Brian-16 16 Nov 2003, 05:27

Nicki-You do have way more prism than I do.But my first was 2.0 base out and six months later it was and still is 4.0.I am concerned after reading your post.I am just learning to drive and aside from seeing my frames now and then (which is normal) I do not notice any loss of side vision,yet!


Sarah J 16 Nov 2003, 04:05

After not being to the opticians for 10 years or so (26 years old) I recently had an eye test. The doc told me my vision was very good. However, I failed to tell her that when I read TV credits there seems to be a blurr or a ghost image up from the top of each line of text. This is only minor and gets worse when I am tired.

My prescription was: R & L -0.5 for astigmatism.

Is this possibly the reason why I notice slight blurr on tv credits. If so do you guys think lenses would be worthwhile and will this get worse at my age. If lenses were needed when should I wear them?

Cheers, from a first time poster!


Andrew 15 Nov 2003, 13:05

Nicki: What does PD mean? I know I've been around a while, but this one is a new one on me.


Tammy 14 Nov 2003, 17:16

Alan, you are correct in stating that my new glasses Rx is a huge increase in Rx from what i am currently wearing. I will try to explain. About 2 or 3 years ago i had my eyes examined by another optometrist, and at that time, the eye doc told me that something was definitely going on with my left eye. He didn't say what he suspected it was, but did make a strong recommendation that i start taking Lutein, which is a carotenoid like Beta carateen, and helps promote healthy vision. I acted at once on his recommendation, and took 6 mg Lutein bid(that means 2 times a day) for around 2 years. My vision seemed to improve. Then i decided that taking all this Lutein was getting too expensive, and so i quit taking it. Well, i am now taking it again, so we'll see if it helps.

Puffin, both you and Alan are wrong in thinking that i'll see 20/40 with the new glasses. The old glasses from Last year correct my vision in both eyes to 20/40. With the new glasses i will see 20/40 in one eye and 20/50 in the other.

P.S. I am not offended by anything that you have asked. Take care, Tammy.


Mal 14 Nov 2003, 14:57

On guestimating a prescription of someone who got glasses at 18 for driving,what might their prescription be 20 years later:

Alan - the +1 kinda confused me, wouldn't they still definately be in the minus? I've seen somewhere a formula for calculating progression so thought it would be somewhere beyond the late -1s for sure.

This particular person is now a contact lens wearer, quoted as saying: "I'm not too bad (talking about eyesight) but when I was 18 I could leave my glasses in the car, not now though". Any guesses?

She also reckons that opting for contacts has made her eyes worse because "you just get used to wearing them, then you can't do without them". True or fantasy?

And she's just beautiful now but even better with glasses I think.


Puffin 14 Nov 2003, 14:13

Alan

I think the 20/40's after the new glasses.


Nicki 14 Nov 2003, 13:43

I have an adult squint for which I am awaiting surgery. Meanwhile, because the squint is getting worse, I have fresnel prisms on the back of my glasses. It helps with the double vision but it is so blurry to look through. My current prism is 29PD but it grows by about 4PD every 6 weeks. Are there other adults who this is happening to? I'm getting really fed-up with it. I can't drive and I struggle to read. Any advice?


Alan 14 Nov 2003, 13:21

Tammy,

I hope you won't be offended by my asking this:

Your old Rx was R -12.50 and L -11.00.

Your new Rx is R -15 and L -13.

That's -2.5 difference in the R and -2 difference in the L. But you can see 20/40.

Something is odd about that (namely that if you need -2 more power than your current glasses, your vision would be around 20/100 if not worse). Can you explain? ;)


Tammy 14 Nov 2003, 12:34

Alan, With my current glasses i am corrected to 20/40 in both eyes. No, i am not having difficulty in getting around at all. I am not really having difficulty recognizing people either. Maybe from a distance, yeah, but i think that's pretty normal to not recognize someone at the other end of a hallway.


Alan 14 Nov 2003, 11:22

Mal - very likely to be between +1 and -3, I'd think. It could vary quite a bit, but if the person went to college right after high school, I'd guess -2 is about as likely as anything. Anything is possible, though.


Mal 14 Nov 2003, 11:17

Anyone able to guestimate what the likely prescriptuion of someone who initally got glasses at 18 for driving (c-1?) would be 20 years later?


Alan 14 Nov 2003, 08:28

Tammy,

What is your corrected acuity with your current glasses? Are you having much trouble getting around and recognizing things?


Tammy 12 Nov 2003, 12:38

For those of you who are waiting for me to post about my new glasses, of which the Rx is -15.00 and -13.00, i have not gotten them yet. In fact, i haven't even picked them out yet. I probally won't be ordering them until after i have my Fluorescein Angiogram done on December 9th. I will post about them when i do order them.


Bowser 11 Nov 2003, 13:48

Willy;

I'm mildly hyperopic as well and I also

I definitely experienced the same thing with the astigmatism after a short period with my most recent prescription.

I first noticed it in my right eye, then my left as well. My cyl. is -0.75.

It probably came out after my eyes finally relaxed with my plus prescription. My uncorrected near and middle distance is pretty lousy, and in lower light, the distance is not too good euither.

Bowser..


Willy 10 Nov 2003, 20:08

I've recently found the site and am amazed by the level of detail! I am 42 y/o and am OS: +0.75, OD: +0.50, nothing too major (yet) but my eyes have been straining a bit more lately so it's time for a check (it's been several years). Can still read anything up close except for the back of an aspirin bottle in bad light so I hope any increase is due to hyperopia and not presbyopia (not ready for bifocals yet!)

My question to anyone who may know -- at the last exam, the doctor noted a very slight (-0.25 OS) astig. but did not prescribe it because I would use the glasses only for reading. But when my eyes are tired and I leave my glasses on to relax my eyes, if it's at night, I experience some astigmatic distortion (headlights and led displays are the worst). Otherwise, my distance vision is still good (though I know I'm accommodating to overcome the latent hyperopia). Do plus glasses increase the effect of an uncorrected minus astig? Either way, I'm going to insist my next pair have appropriate correction.


RJ 04 Nov 2003, 09:22

SZ6,

Those whose uncorrected vision is 20/20 or worse, but can see 20/15 with glasses or contacts - they cannot be emmetropic (0.00). Their retinas are in good condition if they see 20/15, but the focusing is incorrect (myopia, astigmatism, or hyperopia) and glasses provide the retina with the best focus, and thus best resolution.

BTW, I have noticed that during the eye exam, when minus power is added past the correct strength (overminus), while this overminus does not allow me to read smaller lines than 20/15, the lines look darker and the chart looks more intense and "contrasty". Quite appealing - theoretically the correct strength lens should look the best, but in practice, if asked which was better, I would say that -0.25 or -0.50 more than the correct strength looks the best. Any ideas as to why this is so?


SZ6 04 Nov 2003, 06:53

What about those people whose uncorrected vision is worse than 20/20, but can see 20/15 with glasses/contacts - does anyone know how that worked?

I remember about 10 years ago, when Wade Boggs was having a poor hitting season for the Red Sox (hitting in the .250s instead of his usual .340+), he started wearing glasses, and there was a big deal made about it. Apparently his vision had been 20/15 or 20/10 in the past, and having it worsen 20/20 affected his hitting. He wore glasses to bring his vision back to, or near, the level it used to be.


Alan 04 Nov 2003, 05:24

I might have heard of a 20/8 at some point, but if so, it was only once and I think I read about it -- so who knows if it was really true. For a person to see better than 20/10 I think requires some different physiology than a person with 20/20 vision. 20/5 would mean the resolution of a person's vision was 4 times smaller than with 20/20. I would think this would require a retina with cones closer together or healthier than normal, and maybe a larger-than-normal eye as well. I'm just speculating, but I think it's not surprising that 20/10 or better is rare.


RJ 04 Nov 2003, 04:25

Hi everyone,

What's the *** best *** distance acuity (corrected or uncorrected, does'nt matter) you have ever seen or heard of? My doc says that better than 20/10 is practically unheard of - even 20/10 is fairly rare. I have 20/15 plus 2 or 3 20/10 letters, which is quite good.

Also, does the best corrected acuity decrease significantly with age? (maybe some of the older people here above 45 or so can answer this)


Tammy 31 Oct 2003, 18:51

Aliena, Yes, i know that it's a huge increase in Rx for someone my age, since most people's vision stabilizes while they are in their 20's. No, i don't smoke...i used to, but i was not a very heavy smoker. I quit smoking in 1987 or around then anyway. Yes, they think that i have something like Macular Degeneration. It's scary, but if i've got it, i've got it. Life must go on!


Tammy 31 Oct 2003, 18:43

Tod, I'm just glad that this new doc took a family vision health history. Yes, it went fairly well yesterday. He said that after the dye test, both he and my optometrist will know more how to treat me since they will have all the pics of the inside backs of my eyes. No, i did not tell him that i have problems looking at the entrance floor at the mall. I probally should have. I don't know how my pressure was, he didn't really take it. He refracted me and dilated my eyes and then used a blue light that he said would not touch my eye, but just come very close to it. Yes, you are very right...Prayer does work miracles! Thanks.


Aliena 31 Oct 2003, 18:42

Tammy:

That was a big increase in your Rx for your age. Do they think you might have Macular Degeneration? MD usually occurs in people a bit older than you are and is one of the major causes of blindness. One of the major causes of MD is smoking. Do you smoke?


Tod 31 Oct 2003, 17:07

Tammy, I am glad things went reasonably well for you at your eye exam. I think the dye test will give the doctor a better look at the blood vessels in the retina. Did you tell him about how dizzy you get when looking at the floor at the mall? How was your pressure. If there is any hemoraging of the blood vessels they can stop that with a laser treatment. this of course is a different laser than a LASEK laser in that it reaches to the back of the eye. I am so glad your appointment was moved up a few days. prayer does work.


Tammy 31 Oct 2003, 07:18

Puffin, it is markedly more than i did have. My old Rx was R -12.50 and L -11.00, plus astigmatism and a reading ad

d. My old VA was 20/40 both eyes.

Guido, I didn't really pay attention to my vision until shortly before i found EyeScene, which was about 4 or 5 years ago. I would have been around 33 y/o.


Guido 31 Oct 2003, 03:45

Tammy, a personal question if you do not mind. At what age did you first notice deterioration of your corrected visual acuity?


Puffin 31 Oct 2003, 02:18

That sounds noticably worse than the last time I remember you posting up your RX and VA etc. Mmmmm.


Tammy 30 Oct 2003, 15:09

Well, i had my retinal evaluation today. The doctor refracted me and stuff like that. He told me that one eye is 20/40 and the other is 20/50. He also said that there's a kind of degeneration that myopes get that they don't think is age related, and that may be what i've got, but he said he wants to do a Flouriscein Angiogram, which is where they send dye through you and then take about 40 pictures of the back of your eyes. I also got a new Rx which is OD -15.00 and OS -13.00, i didn't really look at the new correction for astigmatism. Before i left, i had to watch a video on Flouriscein Angiography, and then when that was over, i was sent home with some information on Macular Degeneration and also Angiography.


Tod 30 Oct 2003, 15:03

Tammy, I hope all went well today. Please keep us posted.

God bless


Tammy 29 Oct 2003, 16:12

Philosifer, try http://www.visionrx.com/home.asp


Philosifer 29 Oct 2003, 15:43

Greetings

Does anyone have the link for 'do it yourself ' eye testing online ?

Some web site with a Snellen chart sort of thing that will show up on your computer monitor and, when viewed (one eye at a time) from 2m, or 6 ft, away - yield some indication of visual acuity ?


Tammy 29 Oct 2003, 15:02

Tod, Thanks for the well wishes and the prayers! I don't think i'll be running this time. My appointment is only a short distance away - by car, and my friend and i are leaving around 1:30pm and my appointment's not until 2:00pm. We may even leave a little later than that, but it will only take us about 10 minutes to get there!


Tod 29 Oct 2003, 14:23

I hope all goes well for you tomorrow. I'll be praying. And remember, no running to get there.


John 28 Oct 2003, 23:49

Hi Nick, Hi Marcel

if your eyes can't tolerate contacts

what about wearing special glasses for sports.


Tammy 28 Oct 2003, 17:50

Trent, Thanks and so do i!


Trent 28 Oct 2003, 16:14

Hope all is well Tammy


Tammy 28 Oct 2003, 13:59

The date of my retina evaluation has changed. It's now taking place on October 30th instead of November 3rd. I will keep you all updated on it.


Kate 27 Oct 2003, 15:25

My near vision was sorta fine, i couldnt read fine print, i tried a pair of halfeyes from dollar tree, but i couldnt see the screen when i looked up. I also got headaches.


Curt 27 Oct 2003, 10:21

Kate: He could have given you reading glasses that were +1.75 for each eye, but they would make your distance vision very fuzzy. The +0.5 for distance is not very strong, and will likely allow your eyes to relax a bit. But the +1.25 added to the +0.5 means that reading will likely be much, much more enjoyable. Was/Is your near vision blurry, or have you just been getting headaches. I work on a college campus and see a lot more folks (male and female) with you kind of prescription. But bifocals at 19 is a bit of a shot, huh?


Kate 27 Oct 2003, 09:54

I had been getting headaches while reading and using my computer in college, I went to the eye doctor, and he prescribed me glasses, +.50 R +.50L add +1.25, why do i need an add, I'm only 19.


Julian 27 Oct 2003, 09:15

Sam: the +1.25 is the sphere component of the lens, and means she's a bit long sighted; the -0.50 is the cylinder component, to correct a small degree of astigmatism (irregularity probably of the cornea) and the last figure is the axis of the cylinder. Nothing out of the way about any of that. Interesting, though, that she's been told to wear them full time; it's quite a low prescription, but it's quite right that it will improve her vision at all distances, and relieve eyestrain. Was she getting headaches?

Love and kisses, Jules.


Sam 27 Oct 2003, 05:01

P.S.

She was told to wear them all the time as they are for distance as well as close up. Thanks


Sam 27 Oct 2003, 05:00

Hi

My girlfriend just got some glasses for the first time (looks great in them), I was wondering if someone could explain her prescription to me.

Right +1.25 -0.50 40

Left +1.25 -0.50 150

Thanks


Julian 26 Oct 2003, 23:43

Interesting that your astigmatism has increased so much; I wonder what makes that happen. And then I guess bifocal time can't be far off.

Love and kisses, Jules.


dave 26 Oct 2003, 17:13

I'm 43, got glasses when I was 23 but the cylinder was way less. I never wore them much at first.


Julian 25 Oct 2003, 23:43

Yes Dave, what you say is what I'd expect with your Rx...two eys different and a quite a lot of astigmatism in one. How old are you and how long have you had glasses?

Love and kisses, Jules.


dave 25 Oct 2003, 22:13

Julian,

I'm +.5 and -1.0 left

+.75 -2.0 right

I don't know the axis. Left eye is not bad, right eye sucks. I wear glasses most of the time because my eyes play tug of war (trying to focus) when I take them off. Computer and reading are difficult without glasses.


-Aislinn- 25 Oct 2003, 06:27

Ah right!

No problem! :)


High Myope 24 Oct 2003, 13:38

Sorry, I confused you with Ainsley (see recent postings on Induced Myopia).


-Aislinn- 24 Oct 2003, 13:21

Huh???

I'm R:-3.5 L:-3.75


High Myope 24 Oct 2003, 11:35

Aislinn:

Now that you have had a chance to compare -.50 with -4.00 and other prescriptions, do you still feel that you would like to have eyes that are -4.00?


-Aislinn- 24 Oct 2003, 11:00

I think that link's been posted before, but I couldnt remember it, so thanx for posting it again!

And yeh it's really good!


Smudgeur 24 Oct 2003, 09:43

I think this is a far superior vision simulator

http://www.vsdar.de/english/virtualeye/index.html


Julian 24 Oct 2003, 06:04

Dave, about longsighted people's distance vision, I posted something on 'Sightings' yesterday in answer to Nick which was intended to explain this. Concerning your own Rx, is the cylinder plus or minus? In other words, are you 0.5+1.0, 0.5+2.0 or 0.5-1.0, 0.5-2.0.With a low sphere like yours it makes a big difference. How well do you see bareyed?

Love and kisses, Jules.


lentifan 24 Oct 2003, 04:39

The simulator is interesting but seems to be more alarmist about some conditions than others. I think most of us here would class the simulation of severe myopia and hyperopia as mild. In my book severe myopes can't see anything at distance uncorrected. As for astigmatism, I found the 'severe' indistinguishable from 'normal'.

On the other hand severe glaucoma is treated as = blindness, which is no doubt unfortunately true.


Brian-16 24 Oct 2003, 03:23

Dave-The simulator is cool. I don't know about folks who are longsighted,but being highly nearsighted myself,my right eye with glasses is still not 20/20.The simulator shows that when you go toward extreme...


dave 24 Oct 2003, 02:46

Hey guys, there is a simulator at http://www.my-vision-simulator.com/. Does it seem accurate?

I have a slight + (approx .5 d) and astigmatism (1.0 d Left, 2.0 d Right).

I didn't realize + prescriptions don't see well at a distance, is that true?


Julian 23 Oct 2003, 16:28

Nick, I know a guy (I've mentioned him more than once on 'Julian's jottings' who wears (the most spectacular rimless) glasses but puts in contacts to play rugby. He says he can tolerate contacts long enough for that, but not any longer. (As I fancy him like crazy, married or not, I'm glad about that.) Maybe you could do the same.

Love and kisses, Jules.


Clare 23 Oct 2003, 14:07

Nick, I'm -2.25 and -2.50. I'm hopeless in darkness but could maybe manage in daylight, I'm not sure. If you can't wear contacts, short of something radical like surgery, I don't think you've got a chance. Fortunately I can wear contacts and I don't play contact sports but there must be other guys in your situation who play sport with glasses?


Nick 23 Oct 2003, 13:42

Hi Marcel, looking at your post someway down the board about playing sport, I have exactly the same problem playing football. Now that Im so used to good vision with my glasses I struggle without them, especially in bad light. Sometimes I wear my old glasses if I am training; things are still a bit blurry, but its clearer than no glasses. I am thinking of going to see if my eyes can tolerate contacts for a couple of hours a week when I am playing sport. Does anybody have any other answers?


Larissa 21 Oct 2003, 22:02

After a long absence from this site I have returned. I was travelling around Australia and am now back to base in Queensland. I've read back on some posts to try and catch up...some much reading! Anyway, at some point i asked someone to help me get details on how to sell one of my glasses on ebay. I eventually did it and sold them for $41. Funny thing though, the guy that won the auction wanted me to get the lenses removed and sent to him without the lenses. Thanx to whoever it was that sent me the info (sorry can'r remember).


Christi 20 Oct 2003, 16:15

I'm sorry about the previous post; I hit something and away it went. I have a question for whomever... I just got new prescriptions for my glasses- I have one pair for distance, a rather strong pair for near, and progressives for when I do not need to be working close up but want to see a little of everything. I got the distance and near prescriptions filled, but am waiting on the new progressives or bifocals for the time being. I got them this morning, so I wore the near vision glasses when I was working all day with patients, and the distance ones for in between patients and for driving home. Both prescriptions changed to become stronger, and while both provide clear vision, each pair felt, well, stronger; almost like I had to give it a few seconds until they settled in. It has been a while since I've had a significant increase in prescriptions (usually they're smaller increases, or just near, or just far, or a long needed switch to bifocals) so I'm wondering if my response is normal. I should also mention that I am severely astigmatic, although that part of my Rx didn't change. The near glasses certainly magnify more, but are also heavier on my nose and ears and noticably, to me, thicker. The thickness and weight are not important, cuz I see well with them, but I worry about the headache I got from wearing them. Same with the distance glasses in that they're clearer and I can see better, but I almost feel a slight tug in my eyes. As I work in an environment where eye protection is of utmost importance, I did not get my usual "smaller" frame for my near glasses; I got one that was just slightly larger than usual (52 I think it says, though I had to get my other glasses to read it)so maybe that is why it seems heavier. They're not oversized, but rather normal sized in comparison, I guess, to what is trendy and in style. If this is just something that happens because they're new and I need to adjust accordingly, that's fine. Just wondering if it's unusual or not.


hris 20 Oct 2003, 15:54


Tammy 20 Oct 2003, 08:51

I have an appointment with the Ophthalmologist on November 3rd, which is still a couple weeks away. I'll keep you posted!


Tammy 20 Oct 2003, 06:27

Francine and Tod, thank you for your prayers and well wishes!


David_Llewellyn 18 Oct 2003, 21:12

rim: re are the "sphere" and "cylinder" values completely independent question: yes they are. However, there are 2 ways of stating the cylinder, the "- cyl" and the "+ cyl" ways. Any Rx can be stated both ways, but will show different numbers in both sphere and cyl b/w those ways. But in any one system, the values are independant. It is somewhat analogous to the way horizontal and vertical motion in physics are independant, or (even more similar) in electrical theory DC and AC are independant, with sphere being more similar to DC and cyl more similar to AC. Vaguely anyway.


Tod 18 Oct 2003, 17:50

Yes Tammy, as well I will be praying for you. Think positive too!


Francine 18 Oct 2003, 16:50

Well, Tammy, that's a great attitude. Someone recently sent me a quote from the Old Testament about us not knowing what the Lord has in store for us. It was really beautiful, but I unfortunately lost that email in a crash. But you probably know the passage I mean.

Whatever you find out, there are always options open to you. Please let us know how you're doing.

Cheers,

Fran


Tammy 17 Oct 2003, 16:23

Francine, Thanks for the well wishes. I am afraid of what the future holds as far as the retinal evaluation is concerned, but i need only to put my situation in the LORD's hands and he will help me face it in peace. Tammy.


Francine 17 Oct 2003, 14:35

Well, Tammy, you must be at least a little scared, but you're better off knowing what's wrong than not knowing. It may or may not be a retina problem. It may be something else, or something totally innocuous.

Anyway, if it turns out that the news is bad, a lot of eye diseases are at least treatable.

Good luck, and keep us posted...

Cheers,

Francine


Francine 17 Oct 2003, 14:14

Too bad, Lurking, I am not going away.

Fran


Lurking Guest 16 Oct 2003, 06:40

Francine - You are starting to get annoying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Francine 15 Oct 2003, 22:21

Hi guys,

You should read Dr Bowan's writings on the subject of myopia. Actually, his whole website is very interesting, and you can find a lot of his writings by looking around a bit.

http://www.nb.net/~sparrow/controlmyopia.html

One should take care not to interpret his essay according to preconceived notions. Vision professionals who come into contact with thousands of patients a year, as well as vision scientists, are still somewhat in the dark as to a definitive cause of myopia.There are many factors at work.

What does seem clear to most of them is the following:

(1) Environmental influences in modern life have a strong bearing on the development of myopia, and its earlier onset than in previous generations

(2) Myopia, not just high myopia, and other refractive disorders and strabismus and amblyopia (oculomotor disorders) do run in families.

(3) Children born prematurely or suffering some kind of birth trauma are at high risk for the development of myopia

(4) The susceptibility to myopia, regardless of environmental influences, varies greatly from person to person. One particular study indicates this quite definitively.

There are many studies supporting all of these points.

Other possible factors (which have been suggested to me) are the nature of the Chinese and Japanese characters, which are full of many details and require more intense concentration to read than the Roman Alphabet. Another possibility is the pressure of academic performance in these societies. This does not fully explain the high incidence of myopia in people from India of varying education and economic levels. The alphabets used in that country are quite different from those in the far east.

Nutritional factors are at work as well. Ben Lane, OD, has done much work in the field of nutritional optometry.

You can find out more in the group files here:

"FOCUS ON VISION TRAINING" NEWSGROUP

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/focus_on_vision_training/

Cheers,

Francine


Aliena 14 Oct 2003, 13:32

Lore:

A myopic culture would have survived, if it was as homogenous as the Chinese and Japanese cultures are. Maybe, myopia was selected for because the major portion of the culture was doing close things and didn't need to see in the distance well. It is in the genes and not in the environment. Further, neither the Chinese or the Japanese cultures were particularly known for hunting in the last 5,000 years or so, as it was in many other cultures in Western Europe, Africa, and North America.


Tammy 14 Oct 2003, 12:31

I had my eye exam today, what there was of it, and the eye doctor, who was an optometrist, told me that he wants me to go to a retina specialist due to some problems that i've been having, and also because there's been some vision loss since my exam one year ago.


Lore 11 Oct 2003, 11:57

Alan made the points far better than I could. If a culture was predisposed to high levels of myopia, it simply would not have survived the millenia humans have been around.

Environmental factors are what makes sense. Yes, I would imagine that in most cases where someone has above a -10 or -15, there is no doubt genetic involvement. But, as a grad student in a reading-intensive program, I would say that nearly all of my classmates wear glasses and probably 2/3 have prescriptions in the -4 to -7 range (also the range that seems to be prevalent among students in Asia). Like me, the vast majority of those have parents with either very low levels or no myopia at all.

Lots of close work, particularly at a young age, leads to higher levels of myopia when older. That just seems incredibly obvious, and studies seem to bear it out. As more students are given more homework, spend more time in schools, and spend far more time in front of computer screens, their rates and levels of myopia are skyrocketing. Again, if genetics were predominant, the rates would not be increasing as quickly as they are; environment is the only explanation for why so many Asians (and others) are developing myopia at the -5, -6, -7, -8, and -9 levels at the rates that they are.

Again, I'm not arguing that extremely high levels of myopia are not most likely genetically determined. I don't think it's possible to do enough close work to make yourself a -18 or a -24. But, for the vast majority of myopes, I do think that the level of close work required by contemporary academic standards leads to higher rates and degrees of myopia. Since it also seems to be leading to other problems as well--such as increases in rates of obesity and a rise in cases of ADHD, which both seem to also be due to kids not being given enough time to run around and be kids--I do think it is a matter of concern and something that should be addressed, although I don't think myopia is at all the worst result of our current push to make all kids study harder, faster, and longer than they were ever expected to in the past.


Marcel 11 Oct 2003, 01:49

Nick and others,

you wear your glasses for football?

I tried it because I can't use contacts as well because of my eyes but it didn't work. the glasses had been damaged. i thought i hadn't to wear specs for sport but as you told my problem is I can't see very well without them when it's getting dark.

any advice?


rim 10 Oct 2003, 18:04

are the "sphere" and "cylinder" values completely independent such that for a given sphere and cylinder (let's say -3 and -0.5 respectively), wearing -2.5 glasses would leave me at -0.5 sphere and -0.5 cylinder?

thanks.


mviii 09 Oct 2003, 07:42

Thank you, David. The intended lenses are minus so neither the computer, nor the technician should balk.

I was in San Francisco twice last month. I love that town.


Bella 09 Oct 2003, 07:32

I have glasses for astigmatism, my rx is r- +.75 -.50 40 l- +75 -.50 150

I have recently bought myself some -1 glasses that I can see perfectly with.

Am I doing any damage to my eyes by wearing the -1's and why would my eye doc prescribe a + rx when I see better with a -?

I find it takes a while for my eyes to get used to my atigmatism rx.


Alan 09 Oct 2003, 06:18

Puffin - Umm, could you clarify the question?

Philosifer - That site pretty clearly has a particular viewpoint on how myopia develops; it falls toward the "environment" end of the argument, so it cites statistics that support the "environment" argument rather than the genetic. The point made earlier on, though, is that other studies show conflicting results. If the stat's on this site were definitive and unquestioned, there would be less to debate.


Puffin 08 Oct 2003, 16:33

Does it matter if the genes in question are flared or otherwise?


David_Llewellyn 08 Oct 2003, 16:25

mviii: Optometrists do sometimes specify the base curve, even tho there is no official slot on a typical form. The doctor can write many notes on the form, yours would probably be written:

"Plano Base Curves" or

"Set BCs to zero" or the like.

In theory the lab is required to follow the directions, or refuse the job if they can't follow them. In practice these days the lab guys punch the basic Rx numbers into a, guess what, computer, which calculates the "optimum" base curve and other variables, and grinds out a lens. Anything else may require entering additional info and that requires work, particularly if the computer won't permit the stated combination. For example, if you have a + power and you ask for plano BCs, the computer will surely reject it since the lens can't be made.


Philosifer 08 Oct 2003, 15:11

Someone was asking for the data on prevalence (or incidence) of myopia by racial (and other) categories. Here is what looks like a pretty good source ?

http://www.unm.edu/~bioanth3/behavior/myopia.htm


Aliena 08 Oct 2003, 09:12

I must amend my statement. LTLurker states that the Korean culture does not have a higher incidence of myopia, even though the children are pushed to study very hard and must therefore use their eyes for close work. Also, I think the Korean Culture emphasizes physical activity, probably more so than the Japanese Culture.

So, it would seem, as I originally stated, that the importrant factor for myopia is in the genes.


Aliena 08 Oct 2003, 08:00

Good discussion on the nature vs nurture question, genetics vs environment. I still think most scientists would say that genetics is the predominant factor. But, it is true that the Japanese and Korean cultures do push their children to study long and hard to get ahead, and this suggests that environment is the important factor. I haven't heard as much about Chinese Culture. And, there probably is not any government or scientific agency, such as NSF, NIH, or Japanese Administration of Science, that would be willing to fund a proper study on the question, even though myopia is an important health and society problem. The reason is that the more practical approach of finding ways to treat the problem will dominate for funds. So, the answer will not likely be determined. It will remain like the question, which came first, the chicken or the egg.


Alan 08 Oct 2003, 05:39

I can't speak for Lore, but I think I'd *prefer* to think whether or not someone became myopic was based just on genetics...then, for example, I wouldn't feel bad about my own behavior leading to myopia (even though NO ONE in my exetended family is myopic). Unfortunately, I find the genetic-only story completely absurd. That's not to say there isn't a genetic component, but to say behavior/environment isn't also a critical piece seems very unlikely...but it's hard to do a study that can really pin down the environmental/behavioral question. But in addition to anecdotally piecing things together, an evolutionary argument also makes the genetics-only story sound pretty much ridiculous: If 80 percent of a particular Asian population (ANY particular population) is genetically predestined to become nearsighted, do you REALLY think that population would be substantial? There's no way; too tasks that needed doing a few hundred years ago required some decent vision. The fact that studies can't find an environmental component doesn't mean there isn't one there. Studies work well when you can *control* the variables (or at least understand what they are and how to describe them)...not really the case here.

Individual experience probably colors our views a lot. It's probably natural for me, given my experience as a myope in a family with patently little genetic predisposition for myopia, to think that behavior has a lot to do with it. And it's probably natural for Aliena, as someone who was unquestionably going to be myopic completely independent of her bahavior/environment, to favor the genetic argument.

Actually, it seems like a study across many different countries and populations within those countries should be able to say something interesting about this question. But it would be a pretty big study, if it were to be done right.


LongTimeLurker 08 Oct 2003, 05:06

Lore,

There is definitely some merit in what Aliena says. It just so happens that at the moment, the "fashionable" view is the non-genetic one, but for every study that establishes that heredity or genetics has no effect, I guarantee you there is one that can prove statistically that genes play a vital role.

As someone who has lived and worked in Tokyo the past couple of years, I can't help but notice the widespread myopia that prevails. But your sweeping generalisation about "Asian" populations unfortunately does not hold true. South Korea provides a good case study. The educational system in place in that country parallels the pressurised one here in Japan, and if anything, is even more intense and reading focussed. However, South Korea has not experienced anything above "normal" proportions of myopia, comparable with Western countries, despite its educational system, and its young people's "lack of sustained outdoor activity" (also not really true in Japan, sorry to crush the steetype).

Really, it is Chinese and Japanese people who experience have the above average propensity for myopia (wherever they might be in the world, as predominantly Chinese Singapore can testify). Further weight is lent to the genetics argument by Jewish people, who also possess the high propensity for myopia development. Jews are dispersed throughout the world, and regardless of educational system or educational level, the trend remains intact.

So basically, I don't think you can ever write off one argument completely. Maybe people would like to refute the genetics argument because it makes them feel out of control of their (or their children's) "visual destiny"?


Lore 06 Oct 2003, 18:58

Aliena,

I'm not sure that that's true, either. The incidence of myopia in Asian populations has risen *dramatically* over the last few generations; if it were genetic, that would not be the case.

The consensus among people looking at the issue seems to be that it is indeed the long, long hours many Asian youths spend doing school work and other close work (as well as their lack of sustained outdoor activity) has led to the increase in myopia. There appears to be no evidence that it is genetic.


Alan 06 Oct 2003, 18:51

Aliena -- Really? How do you know? I don't really think that's true; I think the rate has more to do with their educational system.


Aliena 06 Oct 2003, 15:15

Zach:

Chinese and Japanese have a high incidence of myopia, primarily because of genetics. I know that some people will say that it is due to working very close to things, doing small detail work, or reading too much, etc., but the overall cause is genetic and therefore cannot be prevented. The amount or degree of myopia might be controlled to some extent by the things we do very close to our eyes, but the genetics is still the primary cause will still be the primary determinant of the degree of myopia.


Zach 06 Oct 2003, 14:20

Has anyone ever heard why so many Chinese people are myopic?


mviii 03 Oct 2003, 09:00

Curt

Thanks, Curt. I now know exactly what to do.


Curt 03 Oct 2003, 08:08

mviii: Optometrists generally don't tell an optician how to make glasses, just as an optician does not tell an eye doc how to do an exam. Opticians know a lot about the physical characteristics of lenses and generally use standard formulae to determine the base curve of a lens.

If you think about an eyeglass prescription, there is no where for the issue of base curve to be written in.

They are generally written:

OD: (sphere power) (cylinder power)X(axis) (add if present) (prism if present)

OS: the same way

there is no where in the Rx to address base curve. If you want specs with flat fronts, you need to discuss that with the optician...


mviii 03 Oct 2003, 07:37

I need a bit of help.

When an optomitrist is writing out a prescription for lenses, how would he/she tell the optician to make the front of a set of lenses flat?

Is it "Base Curve = 0"

If so, where is it done?

Thank you.


abeflow 01 Oct 2003, 22:05

has anyone ever tried using pinhole glasses?


Andrew 30 Sep 2003, 14:07

I usually wear contacts when I'm running, as there is no bounce factor. I sometimes wear my prescription sunglasses for running, especially when I'm by the sea, as they cut out a lot of the glare, which can be really uncomfortable.


Tammy 30 Sep 2003, 13:50

Fred, Nothing major with the glasses situation; just a popped out lens.


Nick 30 Sep 2003, 13:19

Hi James; I have to agree that glasses can be a bit of a nuisance for sport. I'm more into cricket and soccer than running; I did wear my glasses for cricket matches. I'm trying to avoid having to wear them for football but it's not easy. Recently, I've had to start wearing glasses if we are training outside in the dark cos I can't see well enough at all. I did investigate the possibility of contacts before but I was told my eyes weren't suitable for them. Thinking of going back to see if I could tolerate them for a couple of hours when I am playing soccer, though. What about you?


Fred 30 Sep 2003, 13:14

Keep us informed Tammy, good luck! What happend to the repaired glasses?

Still did't manage to catch you on the chat....


Tammy 29 Sep 2003, 14:19

I had my glasses repaired today. While i was there, i made an appointment for an eye exam, since it's been about a year since i had one. The appointment is on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 at 2:00 pm.


John 29 Sep 2003, 05:07

Clare,

I don't wear my glasses when I'm running although I miss them a bit but they disturb me.

What about you, Nick and others?


Starfish 28 Sep 2003, 14:01

Hello, this is my first time to this website. Please tell me if I am posting this in the wrong place. To make a very long story short I went in for a Lasik consultation (since my nearsightedness keeps getting worse, I have double vision and was now having a terrible time reading also and functioning in my classroom) only to find out that the prescription I had from my reg. eye doctor was way too strong (I have gone to him for 8 years)!!! Right away they thought that the prescription wasn't matching up with my eyes. It ends up that they put in contacts for a week (similar to my prescription 8 years ago when this Lasik doctor was my normal eye doctor) and I could see great, no more double vision or blurriness, I could read again, also!! (I am too young for presobyia - sic).

My question for this group is, can you tell me or point me to a website where I can find out how this could have happened to me??

For the record, my prescription (that was too strong) from Oct. 2001 was:

-400 SPH Prism: 1/2, Base: DN

-550 SPH Prism: 2, Base: BO

The prescription the Lasik doctor gave me last week was (with no prism):

-2.25, cylinder: +0.50, Axis: 050

-3,50, cylinder: +0.25, Axis: 005

The lasik doctor said that perhaps the other doctor started out giving me a prescription that was just a little strong but over time kept adding power and then prism. My eyes/brain could compensate only so much until it would get blurry, etc. I would love to find a website or article that could describe how the eyes/brain does this?

And, yes, I am getting the LASIK done in a couple of weeks. I got a cheap pair of glasses from W*l-Mart to get me by until the surgery. I feel that I have been given my vision back!!!

Sorry for the long post, I hope someone can help. Thanks very much.


Julian 28 Sep 2003, 04:38

You certainly have a point there, Gift4You. I've sometimes found the sight of a good-looking boy squinting into the distance a real turn-on. BUT as a permanent condition I think I'd find it irritating, knowing that a pair of bits of plastic fitted into a well-chosen frame would put a stop to the squint and make him even more exciting. So on balance I'm with Nick: glasses without squinting looks better than squinting without glasses.

Love and kisses, Jules.


Gift4You 27 Sep 2003, 05:02

"Anyway, glasses and no squint looks better than squint and no glasses."

Depends on your taste, actually. I find it highly erotic to see a sexually attractive woman squinting to see without glasses. Something extremely sensuous about her vulnerability and watching her make her way through a blurred world.


Clare 27 Sep 2003, 03:21

James, do you run without your glasses? My prescription is similar to yours and I do. I have a pair that I might wear if I run at night, they're quite comfortable but mostly I have no problem in running without my glasses. What do you find is the problem? For swimming you could get some prescription goggles. A friend a work is a keen swimmer, he often tells us he couldn't see a thing while he was swimming because he didn't have his glasses on.


James 26 Sep 2003, 21:34

Hi Nick,

My rx is -2,5 and I like wearing glasses. But I have a problem with them becaue I like sports, for example swimming and jogging.

What about you?


dave 25 Sep 2003, 18:19

hi speclover thank you for the information using the myopia simulator putting in -3.50 with 1.75 astig looks very blurry to me cant see enouph to make out any letters if that is not a strong rx i hate to see what is really strong


spec4ever 25 Sep 2003, 16:49

dave, what you generally do is take 50% of your astigmatism, and add it to your spherical correction to get the total. And, even if you were to be what you added it up to, that is not all that strong a prescription.


dave 25 Sep 2003, 13:56

hi i never got an answer to my question i am now -3.50 also have 1.75 astig and -3.25 with -1 atig i have semi rimless frames and the are thick alot of power rings is mr rx really -5.25 with astig and -4.25 with astig and are these a fairly strong rx thank you


Nick 25 Sep 2003, 13:46

Hi, James. Sorry it's taken me a while to reply. Yeah, although at -2.00/-2.25 my rx would be considered low by most people around here, I am very definately a full time wearer these days. In an ideal world, I'd prefer it if I didn't have to wear them, but as I can't cope with the blur and headaches if I don't there's not much choice. Anyway, glasses and no squint looks better than squint and no glasses.


ant 25 Sep 2003, 08:57

Mattp, Stingray and others

Yes,I have had these stick-on fresnel prism lenses in the past. I have always had a high prism in my glasses and when I was having particular problems with the convergence of my eyes when reading they used these stick-on prisms to try and get a more consistent rx based on what my eyes could get used to. I now have a total of 20 prisms balanced between the 2 eyes - so my glasses are very thick at the edge as the base is out and up.


mattp 25 Sep 2003, 07:53

stingray (and others)--

I may have an answer to your mystery about the glasses. I am nearsighted and wear trifocals. Two weeks ago, at my annual exam, I pointed out I was having difficulty focusing when reading, assuming I would need an increase in the reading power. But no. The doc said i was having convergence and accomodation problems with my left eye when reading and he wanted to try a prism lens. The power is hard to prescribe and he wanted to see if I could tolerate the prism in the top (distance) lens before I had a new pair of glasses made up. he prescribed a fresnel prism lens that is stuck on the inside of my left lens. It is 3D base in. Unless I look closely at the edge of the lens, I can't tell it's there. It is covered with vertical lines, and consequently there is a lot of annoying glare/reflection. It does make reading easier. The point here, though, is that this lens is only temporary--I see the doc in two more weeks fo an evaluation and a regulaR RX.

Hope this sheds some light on your glasses--Matt


stingray 25 Sep 2003, 06:15

You know after looking at the edges of the lenses with a magnifying glass, it does appear that there are two separate lenses. So that theory of the glued on fresnel lens makes sense. Why it was prescribed or used for I don't know .


Socks 25 Sep 2003, 00:36

I think that's right. One of my cousins had a lazy eye when she was a kid and I remember her glasses looking exactly like that. She would always try to look over the top of them because she had a really hard time looking through them.


LikeGlass 24 Sep 2003, 17:51

They could be a type of training lens, combined with a regular Rx, used in order to tame a muscle disorder, and may have been intended for temporary usage. Post a close-up picture of the lens so we can all have a look. If you do not have a handy server, Email me the shot (likeglass@hotmail) and I will put it up on my site for us all to look at.


Wurm 24 Sep 2003, 17:51

Sounds like they might be to allow a person with a limited field of vision to have a fuller field (once their brain adjusted to the odd, that is).


Stingray 24 Sep 2003, 17:42

Aliena: They don't seem to be pasted on the lenses. They appear to be one solid piece . Why would they do that in the first place? I thought prism correction was either in or out depending on the problem of the eyes veering out or in. These glasses present some serious headaches if worn too much by someone else.


Aliena 24 Sep 2003, 14:58

Stingray:

It sounds as if the lenses have Fresnel prism lenses pasted on the backside of the regular lenses. The lines you describe can be either vertical or horizontal, depending on the type of prism that is necessary.


Stingray 24 Sep 2003, 13:04

Just when you think you have seen everything, you come across a pair of eyeglasses that you have never seen before. I got this pair in a thrift shop and the lenses are like no other I have seen. They are trifocals, but what sets them apart is that there are vertical grooves carved into the lenses on the inside of the lenses closest to the eyes. The grooves are about a 1/2 millemeter apart and when you look through them, it's like a trip on LSD!. Everything is kind of up in the air and at a bizarre angle as well. Things viewed through the glasses give me double or triple vision. What are these glasses? Anyone?


Smudgeur 17 Sep 2003, 22:21

Myodisc - we're talking about the mighty shrimpers!


Debbi 17 Sep 2003, 21:05

Sunny Oz mate!!!


Myodisc 17 Sep 2003, 16:11

Andrew and Smudgeur, what's wrong with Glasgow Rangers winning in the champions league? , or am I talking about a different game???


Smudgeur 17 Sep 2003, 15:27

I'm afraid so Andrew - game would have looked better without my contact lenses in!


dave 17 Sep 2003, 10:01

my rx was changed to minus 3.50 with -1.75 astig and - 3.25 with -1 astig is this a strong rx things are quite blurry now and my glasses are quite thick my last rx was -3 with -1 astig and -2.75 witf -.75 astig


Andrew 17 Sep 2003, 08:32

Great to hear that the new glasses seem better, Debbi - but you obviously live miles from me as I couldn't live in sunglasses here!

Smudgeur: Did you see the appalling spectacle on Tuesday night? Aargh!


James 17 Sep 2003, 00:01

Hi Marcel and Nick,

What about your glasses?

Are you fulltime wearers now?

Let us know please.


Debbi 16 Sep 2003, 18:02

Hi

I got my new glasses yesterday and they are great. Even though I have no problem with seeing things close up, they just make things a bit bigger. For distance they are excellent.

The only thing is I wish I'd got plastic frames, I wear sunglasses all the time anyway and they are all plastic frames, the nose pads on these metal frames really get on my nerves. I think I will see if I can get some new lenses in some of my sunnies, (when I've got some spare cash!!)


Smudgeur 16 Sep 2003, 10:23

Hi Debbi

My wife's prescription is v. similar to yours too. She started wearing them full time about 2 years ago and the experience was similar to Bowser's - her reading vision was improved immediately but she felt her distance vision was made worse when she first started wearing them.

She nearly gave up but persevered and after a few weeks her eye muscles had relaxed and her vision was improved.

Hope things work out for you

Smudgeur


Debbi 15 Sep 2003, 17:05

Well, I haven't got my new glasses yet, but I am noticing that my left eye goes blurred sometimes, maybe because it did have a bit of correction for a week.

I didn't know a thing about astigmatism until I found this site and then discovered that I had it! I still don't fully understand what causes it etc. I was wondering what do they do to the lense to correct the degree of astigmatism?

When people tried on the other glasses, they did all say that things looked very blurry through them and I couldn't understand why as they weren't very strong, but as you have pointed out it must be that astigmatism correction.

I will let you know what the new glasses are like when I get them and thanks for the replies.


Julian 15 Sep 2003, 17:04

Bowser: I should think there can be latent anything, since the brain will compensate for an uncorrected defect until it has experienced correction. Not on the same scale as with latent hyperopia - but I think you're right.

Love and kisses, Jules.


Bowser 15 Sep 2003, 14:10

Debbi;

My prescription is quite similar to yours; mild hyperopia, and astigmatism. When I first got my new prescription almost 4 months ago, my distance vision with the plus lenses was erratic but finally settled down to nice and clear when my eyes finally relaxed. Do you think you gave your eyes enough time to adjust to the plus prescription and relax?

What was surprising to me after I adjusted to the plus prescription however, was the astigmatism that I started noticing without my glasses in my right eye. Then it started showing up in my left one as well. I guess it was always there but did not show itself until my eyes relaxed. I've heard about latent hyperopia, but is there such a thing as latent astigmatism?

I find the astigmatism quite irritating so I'm about 100% full-time.

Bowser..


Andrew 15 Sep 2003, 11:48

It sounds like you've done exactly the right thing in getting a second opinion, Debbi. I suspect that getting the prescription exactly right with a mixed astigmatism like yours must be quite difficult. My wife has a similar style of prescription, but the numbers are a bit higher. She has just got some new glasses, and can read the credits on the TV for the first time since we were married. It could be the strength of the lenses, or it could be that the angle for the cylinder correction is not quite right, which is what is causing the trouble. One thing is certain, though - others who try on your glasses will not be able to see any better with them on, aa the negative cylinder with a positive sphere will put everything out of focus!


Debbi 13 Sep 2003, 20:40

Hi

This is the first time I've posted on here, but I have spent many enjoyable hours browsing around the site. I think it is excellent and very imformative. Anyway, I just thought I would write about my recent experience.

I decided to have my eyes tested, mainly because I hadn't had one for about 10 years, my Dad has glaucoma and I felt that I couldn't see street signs etc. as well as I used to. My night vision is terrible as well.

The first eye doctor said I needed a mild prescription which wasn't worth the bother of making up and to avoid night driving.I wasn't really happy with his attitude so went for another test elsewhere. I was told by this lady that I was both near and far sighted and needed a prescription which she gave me R +1.00 - 0.50 5

L +1.25 -0.75 165

I had the glasses made up and tried them for about a week, I came to the conclusion that they felt too strong. My vision with the glasses was sometimes the same or worse than it was without them, so I went back and another eye doctor tested them again, a new prescription R +0.75 -0.50 40

L +0.75 -0.50 150

The glasses have been returned to have the new prescription put in and as they seemed quite annoyed about the whole thing I expect it will take them a while to make them up. So I don't know how things will look through the new glasses. I'm excited but very annoyed that this happened and I feel I've lost faith in eye doctors. I am wondering how many people (even worse, kids),walk around wearing glasses that aren't right for them. (Not by choice)

Thanks for reading this. Take care everyone.


Pete 26 Aug 2003, 22:29

hi, i've posted here before, i had been using +1.50 store readers for a while, but finally dug in and went to the eye doc today, she prescribed me +.25 both eyes add +1.50 for reading, i got 2 pairs, no-line varilux one pair and computer glasses that r line bifocals. i didn't know that i would need bifocals.


Cuopti 21 Aug 2003, 16:52

Well Bowser, astigmatism might be the result of any stress put on to the bi-ocular system, either from overaccommodation or from neck or back problems, as it is induced by the extraocular muscle tension on the weak eyeball.

So.....if you want less....relax....if you want more.....stress out some more.

cuopti


Bowser 21 Aug 2003, 12:36

Sarah - I have read that it has to do with depth of field and the dilation of your pupil. On a bright sunny day I can "almost" read without my glasses, but inside it's a menu I can't begin to read, fuzzy food and looking at a fuzzy wife. Quite a difference.

Bowser..


Sarah 21 Aug 2003, 12:20

Clare and others - If I take my glasses off when I'm outside, it seems a lot worse at night than during the day. But I think that might just be because it's harder to see at night - I mean, seeing in good detail is probably more important for recognizing things in the dark than with lots of light. Plus, things are probably blurrier in the dark, since your pupils dialate. The pinhole idea probably helps some when it's bright out. Am I making sense?


Bowser 21 Aug 2003, 12:16

Clare - Yes, I am a mild hyperope, with some mild astigmatism as well (though it seems to be on the increase in my left eye). I am definitely worse at night. I could go bare-eyed for the most part during the day outside, but inside or at night, forget it. I really notice the astigmatism at night also.

Bowser..


Clare 21 Aug 2003, 11:17

Bowser - night time vision is interesting. I'm -2.25 and could do okay without correction during the day (as long as I didn't want to read bus numbers or similar), but at night I'm really useless - I can see much less. I read years ago that there are people who experience night myopia but may not experience the day time equivalent, and similarly myopic friends of mine have said that they find their night vision is worse. I think that you're hyperopic right? I don't know whether the same applies, but for shortsighted people I think its pretty common to see even worse at night!


Bowser 21 Aug 2003, 09:24

Can astigmatism apparently appear out of nowhere? I have a slight amount in my right eye and a cylinder of -.075 at 95 degrees to handle that, but I am starting to notice some slight ghosting and smearing of lights (especailly red) at night in my left. It's slight, but there nonetheless. I took the dog for a walk the other night bare-eyed and really noticed it for the first time. Seeing car's tail lights go from 2 to 4 vertically as they got further away was quite interesting.

Bowser..


PennNP02 13 Aug 2003, 13:04

Guest80: Given your low amount of astigmatism, you may not need any special contact (such as a toric) to corrrect it. I also have a slight amount of astigmatism which makes my left eye worse than my right. Back in December my doctor slightly increased the power of my right lens prescription to help counterbalance the weaker left eye. Everybody is different though, so check with your doctor to figure out the best option for yourself. Good luck :)


Aislinn 13 Aug 2003, 12:58

Tyler,

We're simply presenting the facts. And the fact is there are a lot of drivers out there with poor, uncorrected eyesight, posing a risk to themselves and other drivers/passengers too.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a site to discuss issues surrounding vision correction... and this is something that falls into that category.


Christy 13 Aug 2003, 12:55

So Tyler - are you saying that you'd be happy to be run over by a car driven by someone who needed specs but wouldn't wear them? Or would you prefer that they wore their specs and gave you wide berth?

I know I'm biased because I actually love wearing specs - but I think anyone taking to the road should do so with the best available vision - and if that means specs - then so be it!

What's more negative - specs - or a road accident?


Chestine 13 Aug 2003, 12:12

Tyler,

Chill out and learn how to spell!


Tyler 13 Aug 2003, 11:24

Hey, thank you again for your replys to my questions. Also i wanted to say that, to the people on this buliton board who are telling us about poor eyesight and driving, i appresheate your information, but if what you want is for us to get our eyes fixed and comment on our poor eyesight, then i think your in the wrong place. Anyone who posts on this site, is seeking information, so please dont bring your negativeity here. Thankes again!

~Tyler


Julian 13 Aug 2003, 09:44

Yes, Aislinn & Christy. I'm reminded of the time (a good few years ago, when I was living in that part of the country) the Chief Constable of Hampshire ordered eye tests for the whole force - and I think it was over 60% were taken off driving duties till they got glasses.

Love and kisses, Jules.


Bowser 13 Aug 2003, 09:03

This site contains a great amoung of interestigng and informative posts. I've seen some references to additional vision-related bulletin board sites throughout but can't remember where I saw them. What are some other good places to check out?

Bowser..


Aislinn 13 Aug 2003, 07:12

Christy - I remember reading something similar to that a while back. It is quite worrying really - you have an eyetest when you first learn to drive, at what could be as young as 17 (or younger in some countries) then there's no legal requirement to have your eyes checked after that meaning, like the article stated, there are many drivers are driving around with poor eyesight.

It seems many people still have old perseptions when it comes to glasses/contancts... wise up people!! ;o)


Christy 12 Aug 2003, 13:11

Watch out for all these blind car drivers - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3141973.stm


Guessing 12 Aug 2003, 11:37

I think your -4 rx would be converted to 20/400


Tyler 12 Aug 2003, 11:30

Hey, J.R. thank you for your insight about my eyes. I really apprechate your information hehe :). I also was wondering if my perscription (-4.00 bolth eyes) could be converted from diopters to acuity?(ie: 20/20 vision) Hah I know I'm far from it, but what would my eyesight be? Thank you so much for anyone who responds. Thankes again!

~Tyler


Alan 12 Aug 2003, 08:05

guest80 - With 0.5 cyl in your prescription, you probably won't notice any difference having the astigmatism corrected. *Maybe* things would appear a little bit sharper, but probably not much. Contact lenses tend to correct a small amount of astigmatism on their own.

If you told an eye doc that the astigmatism makes a big difference to you sometimes, you could wear glasses over your contacts. This would give you an excuse to wear glasses, if you want, when wearing contacts.

That said, -6 lenses don't have to be very thick. Go to a good glasses store, get a frame with a small eye size, and get hi-index lenses and they should be thin enough. If you get plastic frames, the thickness of the lenses need not be apparent at all. (That's true for the glasses I'm wearing at this moment - they're plastic frames with about -6 polycarb lenses and even on pretty close inspection the lenses don't appear to be thick.)


Joseph A. 12 Aug 2003, 04:10

GUEST80: Astigmatism is caused by the corneas of your eyes being more oval than round. You may be able to purchase what they call toric contact lenses, made with a cylinder to correct astigmatism. If you were to correct a fairly high astigmatism with glasses, things may look short, or tall, or even tilted. (Note: Most astigmatisms are symmetrical) You could wear contact lenses that are OD-6.00/OS-3.00, with glasses to correct astigmatism, or contacts to correct all, or glasses to correct all. It is entirely up to you to get what you want; the options are endless. I hope what I have to say on the subject will be helpful to you.

Best of luck.

---Joe


guest80 12 Aug 2003, 02:17

Hello, I have a prescription of about OS -3.00 and OD -6.00. first got my glasses at 9 or 10 which were -2.25 and -3.00, so my pregression has not been too bad (am 22). I recently found out that i ahve a small degree of astigmatism 0.50) which is not corrected because i wear CL most of the time. I dont understand astig and i wanted to know what effect would correction have on my vision. And also, would it be possible to do GOC and have glasses correct astig over my contact lenses? - i enjoy wearing classes but do not like having thick lenses! thank you


aussie wanabee 11 Aug 2003, 23:16

Hi Larissa

Sorry to hear about people questioning your need for visual correction.

This question is off topic:

How difficult was it for you to get into Australia to live and work? Are you an Australian national who used to live in the USA, or did you just pack up and decide to move? How difficult was it to get a work visa?


J.R. 11 Aug 2003, 07:16

Tyler,

What is going on with your eyes is fairly normal, in terms of getting a bit worse. The addition of a little astigmatism is also not a big deal.

Your eyes will probably get a little worse over the next few years, but nothing to get extremely worried about.

There's a lot of us that have been down the same road you're now on with our eyes.


Tyler 11 Aug 2003, 00:44

Hey, i dont know what to look forward to. Im 16 years old, and i have a vision problem. when i first got glasses, my perscription was at -1.25, and i was 11 years old. My new contacts were now marked as -4.00 and i now have developed an astigmatisim in bolth my eyes. i dont really know what to look forward in the future, so if i could get some help id apprechate it. Thank you.


Larissa 10 Aug 2003, 20:43

Hi everyone. I'm really loving it here in Queensland Australia. I've been away for a while because i went to see Sydney and Melbourne. Sydney is really nice, but I prefer the beaches and lifestyle of the Gold Coast. I'm considering staying here permanantly.

I did notice that their were definately more glasses wearers in Sydney and Melbourne. People up here on the coast are probably more shy to wear them. They probably do but in prescription sunglasses, but I have no way of telling if they are or not (I'm not as 'educated' as some of you).

I have been asked by guys why I wear them and if I have to. I get upset at those questions because it makes me feel like they don't want me to. I'm not 'looking' for a man, but I am getting interesting people approach me. The question would come up after about the 4th ot 5th date. I then really lay it on them and tell them that I'm not interested. Not everyone has asked, but I think that it is an odd thing around here to be wearing glasses. All the more reason I'm wearing them.


tortoise 07 Aug 2003, 21:30

Lee, that is wonderful news! So glad things turned out well and that your worries have been relieved. Hope your daughter enjoys her new specs. All the Best.... tortoise


Lee 07 Aug 2003, 21:21

Hi - it's me again -- just read the posts on "Rimless glasses" - thanks a bunch - hope you're all right -- she'll be happy with that. Think I'll try to go that route before contacts. Sorry I haven't posted in a while - been real busy - getting the kids to camp early in the morning and dealing with my son whose 13 and ODD (Oppositional Defiant Disorder) - They have a name for everything LOL. Go back to work Monday after being off for 5 weeks - 5 weeks of doctor appointments :) Hope you all have a good end to the summer! I will try an stay in touch. You're really a great bunch of people! Luv ya all!


Lee 07 Aug 2003, 21:09

TO: All who have answered my posts -- "GOOD NEWS" My daughter's field test was perfect and optical nerve test showed everything fine! The doctor said "this probably is the way God made her" - she has a large shaped - I think - optic nerve (not sure if that's the right word). Anyway he said she shows no signs of Glacoma but should be checked every 7 to 9 months as the unusual size makes her suspect. But more than likely that's just the way she was made. As far as her vision getting worse from last year, he said that is normal as she gets older and nothing to worry about. So I am relieved. Thank you all for caring and sharing.

Peace!

Lee


Alan 05 Aug 2003, 06:28

DelDoc - NO, the doc did not see them in my eyes after 14 days of wear. She was actually pretty non-specific about what was/wasn't OK -- she said something like "well, don't wear them TOO long." Do you think dailies tend to gather protein or whatever else more quickly than 2-week disposables? (Why?)


Happy chap 04 Aug 2003, 23:50

Lore, not entirely true. My wife started wearing glasses for Uni only. They were about -.5 Cyl in one eye and -.25 sph/ -.5 Cyl in the other. She got them when she was 17 (about 13 years ago). Over time, she is now -1.25 Sph and -0.75 Cyl in both eyes (around the 90 Axis). She got those a month ago. She wears them full-time now (she's 30 now). Happy is me!


Lore 04 Aug 2003, 20:16

Actually, a lot of people get less myopic over time. I guess it has to do with presbyopia setting in. But, for whatever reason, it seems like many people who are nearsighted have their prescriptions increase until their 20s, and then decrease after that.


Puffin 04 Aug 2003, 16:08

As far as I am aware, it seems that myopia (indeed all visual problems) very slowly get worse as one gets older. That may be just a feeble generalisation, but never mind.

Is it me or do the most interesting lenses get worn by the older generation?


Anneke 04 Aug 2003, 14:37

Hi Don - I was interested in your comment that myopia gets harder to deal with as you get older. I wonder when you noticed, whether it was before or since your prescription increase? Your earlier prescription was similar to my current one and I'm finding it a real irritant - did you wear yours all the time or is it only since you got an increase? Very interested to hear your comments - might help me I hope. Anneke


DelDoc 04 Aug 2003, 14:31

Alan--

When your doctor said that wearing daily disposable lenses was "OK," did he or she actually see them on your eyes after 14 days of wear? I'd be afraid to be on the other end of the slit-lamp with your eyes on the other side. :(


Alan 04 Aug 2003, 07:30

All - the problem Daffy had with daily disposables shouldn't *necessarily* be considered typical. I just mean to say that if you're thinking a daily might be for you, don't be too afraid of trying them because of Daffy's experience. (I'm not saying it couldn't happen.)

I've used Focus Dailies for quite a while, normally using them as if they were a 2-week disposable -- that is, storing them overnight and using them for a couple weeks before throwing them out. My doctor said this was pretty much OK. Focus Dailies are firmer/stronger and more substantial (easier to handle) than acuvue lenses, and have never been less comfortable after wearing then a couple weeks than they were when they were fresh. I don't know about other dailies, but the Focus ones seem to be a pretty high quality lens. (Not as good as Focus Night and Day, though - these are be far the best contacts I've tried.) And the Focus Dailies also have the unique property in my experience that as long as my eyes aren't dry and the lenses are clean, I can't feel them in my eyes at all. (My eyes tend to get a little dry, though, and the Night and Day lenses are much better for this.)


Daffy 03 Aug 2003, 21:50

When I first got contacts (before my full-time glasses wearing), it wasn't the problem of getting them in...but rather getting them out! I got used to it, but at the start, I thought I might need a doc to get them out!

I had a go at daily disposable. I kept using one pair the next day (to prolong the use), but the suckers broke in my eye when I tried to get it out. I suspected that the solution that they are packaged in are different to the storage solution one uses for storing. It must have degraded the contacts. It took about 12 hours to find and pull out the quarter of the lens that stayed in. I didn't use them more than a day anymore.

Soon after, I got sick of contacts and switched to glasses. Everyone does sooner or later.


Julian 03 Aug 2003, 11:13

Then of course if she does get into contacts she'll pretty soon be so accustomed to the good vision that any time she can't wear the contacts she'll need her glasses (though I did know a guy who went bareyed most of the time when he had an eye infection...putting his -5s on only when he needed to see something - but that's real determination)

Love and kisses, Jules.


Alan 03 Aug 2003, 10:51

Lee and PennNP02 -- I think most eye docs push toward disposables (usually 2 week, rather than dailies, which are more expensive if you actually wear them for one day and throw them out), and I think they would be especially predisposed toward recommending disposables for a younger wearer.

Lee, I'm sure some of the messages that we've made are preaching to the choir in a big way. Sorry.


Aislinn 03 Aug 2003, 10:09

Yeah I wear daily disposable ones & they're SO easy - no messing about with cleaning them or anything!


PennNP02 03 Aug 2003, 09:11

Lee

I agree with Lore about making sure that your daughter will wear glasses if she can't wear her contacts for some reason. I think you need to impress upon her that if she wears contacts when her eyes are "injured" (ie have an infection, etc) she might not ever be able to wear contacts again and then will ALWAYS have to wear glasses. Another option would be to ask the contact lens specialist about disposables. I currently have 2 week disposables and love them! Minimal care (I do take them out for sleeping) but throw them away after 2 weeks and start fresh with a new pair. I don't know if they'll give a 12 year-old disposables but it's worth asking about. Good luck! :)


don 02 Aug 2003, 19:20

hi clare yes i was wearing glasses before but now i really need them thing are quite blurry now cant function without them the older you get myopia gets in the way you cant tolerate it as much


Lore 02 Aug 2003, 18:46

Lee,

Your daughter should definitely be able to get rimless glasses or semirimless glasses in her prescription.

As for contacts, I got them when I was 12. I have to say, I was more responsible with my contacts when I was a preteen and young teenager than when I was in college. (I ended up wearing glasses because contacts didn't seem worth the hassle. I had to put glasses on in the morning anyway, so why not just leave them on all day?) I think that a lot of younger teens are very responsible with contacts because they do NOT want to wear glasses and so treat their contacts with a lot of care. They also want to prove they are responsible, and so act accordingly.

I see no reason why a relatively mature 12-year-old couldn't wear contacts. But, it is a problem if your daughter is very reluctant to wear her glasses. Even with contacts, there are times when you do need to wear your glasses. She might get a cold, she might have allergies, she might get an eye infection (possibly something that has nothing to do with her contacts, like pink eye). You want to make sure she'd wear her glasses in those cases, rather than insisting on suffering in her contacts, which can lead to problems.


Alan 02 Aug 2003, 09:11

Lee,

I *really* don't understand why someone would say that with your daughter's prescription rimless glasses wouldn't work. Did you ask why not? Honestly, it makes *no* sense to me, and I'm almost (not quite, but almost) 100% certain they didn't know what they were talking about. I think her prescription would look pretty good in rimless. Rimless do tend to be more expensive, though; you pretty much want to get polycarbonate lenses, since they are stronger and thinner.

Why can't she put her earings in? I think she just needs to stick with trying a bit. She'll run into the same problem with contacts, though the challenges are different: with contacts, you can kind of see what you're doing (whereas you have to feel it out with earrings), but contacts are a little tougher to handle. It's not actually difficult to put contacts in, and there is NO question that a reasonably coordinated 12 year old can learn to do it. But it takes some patience to get used to doing it. The bigger concern is to make sure she is *careful* with them, so they don't get lost, and so that she takes care of her eyes (doesn't leave the lenses in when she isn't supposed to, cleans them as directed by the doctor, etc). Maybe she can prove her ability to handle contacts by learning to put her own earrings in? (Just an idea - not sure if it's a good one.)

So, I'm pretty sure rimless frames are an option, but contacts could be too (if doctor approves).

I wouldn't worry too much about where her prescription is going to end up; it might get kind of strong, but that's not really a big deal any more (lots of contact lens, fashionable frame, and high-tech glasses lens technologies exist now to prevent one from having to be a dork).


Julian 02 Aug 2003, 05:27

Yeah. Somebody said statistics are like a bikini: what they reveal is quite interesting but what they conceal is vital.

Love and kisses, Jules.


Puffin 02 Aug 2003, 03:17

I have a feeling these formulae will only work for the theoretical statistical "average" child, or for the average myopic progression of a large sample of children: any one particular child has a fair chance of missing the prediction by a wide margin.

Statistics? Damn lies...


Lee 01 Aug 2003, 21:46

Hi Stingray - was just reading your post about that website and figuring out what a child's prescription would be. Actually math is my worst subject :) And asides from that - it would be nice to know - yet, again, it doesn't matter. What matters is that she gets the correct diagnosis and prescription and that she wears them. I can't think ahead to 21 - one day at a time for me - I just pray and leave the rest up to the man upstairs :) Hope you have a good day!


Lee 01 Aug 2003, 21:39

Alan - I definitely will let her pick out frames that she likes - right now she doesn't even wear the glasses we got a few weeks ago. Says "I don't need them." I am not pushing her yet told her when her eyes are rechecked to see if this prescription is right she has to wear them. Maybe I shouldn't have said that but am concerned about her using her better eye to do double work and thus making that eye bad. As far as contacts go, well, I don't think she's ready to put them in even though she says she is. She had her ears pierced a year ago and still needs me to put her earings in :) I guess glasses at her age is not "in" to her. Says she looks like a "dork" She wanted frames that were clear with no rim around them but they said with her prescription that couldn't be. I can't figure out why not. Oh well, like I said she is at a touchy time in her life. We moved recently - she doesn't like her new school, etc. etc. etc. So it's not just the glasses - it's the pre-teen thing :) Thanks for writing - take care and hope you have a good week.


Lore (who is very stupid) 01 Aug 2003, 09:49

The post immediately below this one was from me *to* tortoise. Oops!


tortoise 01 Aug 2003, 09:28

You are so smart! You're totally right: this guy tells parents their 7-year-old -2 myope going to end up, according to his chart, with myopia in the -10 or so range. He gets them to buy into his program, and the kids end up with only -6 or -7 or so. Wow! What success! Nevermind that's where the kids would have ended up anyway...


Clare 31 Jul 2003, 22:46

Don - I had a jump like that too last year, after years of nothing, so I guess it means that I could have another one. What difference did your increase make, I mean were you already wearing glasses fulltime anyway? I imagine you have no choice now.


Julian 31 Jul 2003, 22:21

Don: what do you mean by "the older you get the harder it is to deal with myopia"? Anneke was complaining the other day that it was getting harder to see without her glasses, but not (I thought) that they weren't strong enough. If you can unpack what you said it might be some help to her.

Love and kisses, Jules.


tortoise 31 Jul 2003, 19:37

The formula doesn't work for me; diagnosed at 7, perhaps -1.5D, my vision stabilized very quickly at about -3.00. My daughter was diagnosed at age 12 with less than a diopter of myopia but now, at 29, is in the -5 range. There are too many factors involved to make meaningful predictions IMHO.

It occurs to me that the originator of this idea has something to sell (a myopia halting method) and is motivated to overestimate potential increase in myopia. If he had been around when I was a kid and my worried parents had enrolled me in his program I would have been a brilliant example of the efficacy of his theapy because I did not progress to -9 or so as his formula would have predicted. Make sense?


? 31 Jul 2003, 18:14

Hey where is Anne? I am waiting to see her eye doctor results. I want to see if I was right. Oh Anne...please come back and fulfill our fantasies.


don 31 Jul 2003, 17:40

hi clare yes your rx can go up when you get older im 48 now two years ago my rx was -2.25 -2.00 now it is -3.25 -2.75 aslso my astig went up to -1 it was -.50 before also the older you get the harder it is to deal with myopia


Clare 31 Jul 2003, 14:09

Here's a piece from the site Stingray quotes. But what does it mean, what is an adult onset myope (I mean how old would they be?), and what is axial elongation and how does it relate to this particular type of myopia, and accommodative infacility???

"Adult onset myopes typically progress into myopia by about 0.25 or more per year and can progress to about -3.50D.This myopia occurs with typical axial elongation, and is often accompanied by accommodative infacility" - what does this mean?

I think fit this category having got my first prescription in my mid 20s, starting with -0.75 and now, 8 years later, with -2.25/-2.50. But what this site suggests - the -0.25 per year - seems very vague to me: for how long should I expect it to increase, after all, I thought after 20 or so we were mostly done with prescription increases? But then if that were so wouldn't I still be @ -0.75? Fascinating stuff. Should I be preparing for more increases, will I be more than -2ish .... I wonder.


Stingray 31 Jul 2003, 13:23

Just like the article said...it's an approximation, not carved in stone. Of course other factors are involved that could lead to a higher prescription or a lower one. Here is the link to the website, so you can draw your own conclusions.

http://www.westol.com/pfkod/doctors/predict.html


Alan 31 Jul 2003, 13:20

The formula seems a little weird - I'm not sure it really seems like progression is actually a lot *faster* in people who become nearsighted earlier. But people who become nearsighted earlier very often (but NOT always) *do* (in my experience) end up needing stronger prescriptions by the time they're in their 20's. I mean, I think most people who I've talked to who got glasses before age 11 ended up needing at least -5, whereas most people I've talked to who didn't get glasses before high school (say, age 14) ended up at -3.5 or lower. But there have been exceptions both ways - I've met people who started wearing glasses in 2nd grade and are now college age or older with -2 or -3 Rx's. And I've met people who got glasses in high school but got to -5 or so. Anyway, rates and duration of progression really seem to vary a LOT from one person to the next. But I think the formula seems to produce a sort of reasonable average - let's say the average "under 10" myopic starts wearing glasses at age 8 - the formula says they end up with Rx of -8 or -9. And the average "over 10" myopic starts at age 14 and ends up with an Rx of about -3. These numbers might be a little bit high, but don't seem too crazy - as averages - to me. (Remember, most people who have Rx's over -6 probably wear contacts just about all the time.)


Lore 31 Jul 2003, 10:46

I think that formula is B.S.

I got my first glasses, -2, at age 8, and I'm 25 and -5.50. According to his formula I should need about 3.5 diopters more. That a huge difference.

There are tons of kids under the age of 10 who wear glasses, but not a whole lot of people who need prescriptions of more than -6 or -7 as adults. I really don't think that theory has any validity, but that's JMHO.


lentifan 31 Jul 2003, 09:45

Interesting theory, Stingray. It sounds to me as though he has simplified his findings a lot to come up with these formulae.

Let's suppose that a child has -2d of myopia when first diagnosed. If this is at age 9, then the forecast is ((12*.56)+2) --- say -8.5d at age 21. If, however, it is diagnosed at age 11, then the forecast is ((10*.28)+2) --- say -5d. You suspect the average outcomes would be a bit closer than that. In other words, his calculations are averages and that the results would be on the low side for kids whose myopia starts early in his two age ranges, and conversely on the high side for later onset of myopia.

Alternatively, I might have misunderstood the formula, or my maths might be faulty!


Stingray 31 Jul 2003, 06:54

While surfing the web, I came across an eye doctor's site by an OD named Philip Kearney who wrote about the progression of myopia with a ball park formula to go by. What he said was if a child's myopia started before age 10, it will progress .56 diopters per year to age 21. If the myopia started after age 10, it would increase .28 diopters each year until age 21. To figure out what a child's myopia would be at age 21 is to subract the child's present age when he was first diagnosed with myopia and deduct that from 21. Then you would multiply that answer by either .56 or .28. You then add in the present prescription and that would give you the approximate prescription at age 21. I would be curious to see if anyone knows what their prescriptions were prior to age 10 and what they turned out to be at age 21. I was just wondering just how accurate this formula was. Maybe that will help Lee out with determing what her daughter's final prescription will be when she finishes college.


Alan 31 Jul 2003, 06:33

Lee -- I don't really know for sure, and it probably depends on location, but isn't it more normal and acceptable to wear glasses now than it used to be? It seems like glasses are really fashionable now, perhaps more so for older teens (more of whom wear glasses than people your daughter's age). If a person picks the frames well enough, they're definitely a positive. There might be the odd boy who teases everybody about everything, but she might also get some compliments. Anyway, it's definitely worth taking some serious time to pick out frames - be willing to go to a few different shops, try on lots of different ones. It's *very* worthwhile. Don't feel like you should go into one store and just pick out whichever frame seems best there...hold out for a frame she really likes.

By the way, what is your feeling/opinion about contacts? I think you mentioned that your daughter would like to get them. Do you (or the doc) just feel she is too young, or that there is some other problem with that idea?


lee 30 Jul 2003, 22:18

I meant to say "NEAR SIGHTED". Now that was a real typo. Sorry!


Lee 30 Jul 2003, 22:15

Thanks to everyone who responded to my post. Yes, my daughter is 12 very self-conscious of wearing glasses in public. Being she is so far sighted she claims when she wears them walking in the street and looks down or nearby everything jumps at her and it hurts her eyes. She has excuses for every time she bumps herself on something when she runs and plays saying she wasn't watching where she was running etc. At camp the other day she ran into a stump of a tree and hurt her ankle and tells me she wasn't watching and it wasn't because of her eyes :) Well, I think after ruling out this Glacoma scare I will invest in new frames (of course that means new lenses) that perhaps will make her feel "pretty". She's at a tough age, moody, etc.

Thanks again for writing - will try and post after the testing next week and the doctor's report which we will get on August 7.


Matt 30 Jul 2003, 14:19

I'm sure this won't be much help, but I agree with wbk. Now I regret fighting not wearing my glasses full time; for at least the last year before I went full time I really couldn't cope without them but I wouldn't wear them. Once I went full time I was a lot more confident when I was out because I could see things clearly and recognise people. Before if I'd been out and about I was very reliant on my mates and in parties etc, I would just stand around because I couldn't recognise anybody. Afterwards, I was able to do what I wanted because I could see where I was going and I was much more able to circulate when I was socialising. I did find the first three days hard, but afterthat the benefits outweighed any issues I had about wearing specs.


wbk 30 Jul 2003, 12:44

Sorry again, this time about the initials. Hit the s rather than the k. I'll stop making mistakes now. I hope!


wbs 30 Jul 2003, 12:41

Oops. In that first paragraph I meant to say less reluctant NOT to wear her glasses. Sorry!


wbk 30 Jul 2003, 12:39

Hi Lee-

I have to agree with the previous posts that once your daughter gets used to her new glasses, and thereby appreciates the vision they provide her with, she will be less reluctant to wear them. She is at an age where it probably really concerns her to be seen in glasses, and I would assume that her inability to adapt to the new prescription will, in her mind, be a valid reason for not wearing them. I posted previously that I, too, would go through adjustment periods when my prescription would change. I've come to truly look forward to those times, because usually the results are quite pleasing.

And if I may detour from the 'better vision'/ much more comfortable aspect of wearing her glasses to a more vain one, if you will...as a younger person, I fought like heck not to wear my glasses. Every moment I was away from anyone that knew I needed them, they were off. Considering that my myopic correction was -2, with an astigmatism of -5.25, that was pretty amazing. And a real strain. A constant battle to focus in but at least I wasn't wearing my glasses!! I also had a separate rx for near work, as the astigmatism made my vision a blur near and far. Due to the axis of my astigmatism, rather than employ that traditional "squint" where people seem to almost close their eyes trying to focus, I needed to really scrunch my eyebrows to focus in. Years and years of that left me with rather unattractive, very deep furrows between my eyebrows. In retrospect, the only person I hurt was myself, (obviously visually as well as physically), because I couldn't see well when I was in school, or skiing, or biking or watching tv or reading or walking around or doing anything really. I just recently got new prescriptions, with my near vision one being almost 2 1/2 times stronger than my last rx and again it's a battle, only this time it's because I don't want to take them off. I guess what I'm saying is, I've been there, and I fought it, and I only wish I had just done what was best for me at the time and that was to wear the prescribed glasses. No young girl wants glasses at that age, but if she would just give full time wear a chance, she'd "see" what a difference it makes. And maybe if she wears her glasses all the time, and shows that she is responsible enough to take care of her vision needs, mom might consider contacts for her down the line, cuz we all know that contacts aren't for putting on and taking off all the time, but for those of us that need our glasses all the time ;)


Bowser 30 Jul 2003, 10:02

specs4ever:

Thanks! That is very interesting. I had no idea the values could be written in different combinations and mean the same thing.

Bowser..


specs4ever 30 Jul 2003, 09:56

Bowser, the prescription can be written either way. You are +1.00 -0.75 x 95 in the one eye. It can also be written as +0.25 + 0.75 x 05, which is the same thing, and means that on the 05 quadrant you have + in both Does this make sense to you?


Bowser 30 Jul 2003, 09:50

For astigmatism, What is the difference between a + and a - value? My current prescription is:

R: +1.00 -0.75 x 95 add 1.50

L: +0.50 add 1.50

I minus value on the astigmatism is a bit confusing to me.

Bowser..


Julian 30 Jul 2003, 07:11

Lee: sorry if you were feeling nobody was taking any interest! I re-read your post with the three varying versions of your daughter's new prescription, and I reckon:

AR is the reading from the auto-refractor (the machine that produces an approximate RX when you look in it);

MR is the result of testing with trial lenses ("Which is better..."); and

CYCLO is the result when her eye muscles were paralysed with cycloplegic drops (hope I've got that word right).

The results are fairly consistent - and all show that her myopia has at least doubled, whch is not unusual at her age. My guess is she'll put her glasses on and keep them on when she's ready.

Love and kisses, Jules.


JJ 30 Jul 2003, 06:39

Lee: My daughter would wear her glasses but my son resisted. I do not remember how old your daughter is but both of my kids were around 13 when they started wearing contacts and they both prefer contacts.


Bob 30 Jul 2003, 03:12

Lee:

I think your daughter will eventually ease into wearing her glasses. Both of my daughters resisted wearing glasses for several years. They hated them, lost them, broke them, etc. But after two or three prescription changes, they both got to where they couldn't do their work at school without their glasses. Without prompting, my oldest daughter started wearing her glasses to school everyday and soon was wearing them all the time. After losing her glasses and going several months without, my younger daughter got a stronger prescription and pretty much wore those glasses out of the opticians office and has worn them ever since.


lee 29 Jul 2003, 21:28

Specs4ever - Hey thank you for posting. You made me feel better:) I took my daughter to another eye doc today - her pressure was 15 in one eye and 17 in another which is ok! We are going back next week for two more tests - one visual field test and one (I forgot the name) which will tell if Glacoma is a concern - the doctor said that she just might be made this way with cupping of the left eye but we have to take the tests to rule out Glacoma. The good thing is there is no family history of eye disease so he said that's a big plus. As far as her prescription goes, he thinks first we should rule out Glacoma and then worry about the precription. You are right they did put a lot of drops in her eyes to dialate them the last time - this time they gave her drops for pressure test, plus drops to dialate her pupils - poor thing had to wear these dark glasses to go outside until her pupils went back to normal plus they gave her drops to bring them back to normal faster. I hope you are right and that she eventually wears her glasses - hearing about your daughter's eyes made me feel better too. Thanks again for writing. I was beginning to say "Hey - gee noone wants to respond to me". Hope you have a good week!


specs4ever 29 Jul 2003, 20:43

Lee, I was waiting for someone else to reply to your last post, but no one has felt up to any form of interpretation, so I will take a stab at it.

The first thing I did was to add the spherical and the cylindrical correction together. For me it makes it a bit easier to understand. The spherical is the actual myopic correction, and the cylinder is the astigmatic correction, but added together the numbers give the highest total prescription. Her original together prescription was R -2.00 L -3.00. The first exam - the AR one gave her R -3.75 L -4.50. The second came up with R - 3.25 L - 3.75 Then the cyclo refraction gave her R -3.50 L -4.00. This exam was done with dilation drugs, and is usually the most accurate, so like you I presume that this was the prescription for her present glasses. To me this doesn't seem all that far off. My own daughter started off at 10 y/o with -1.75 and within 6 months had jumped to -3.50. Now at 25 or so she is around -8. So, your daughter's progression doesn't seem all that bad.

I am suprised that she is having trouble wearing her glasses, and I suspect that she will, if you don't push her too much, eventually get tired of the blur, and will gradually start to wear them. I think it is just a matter of her eyes getting used to the slight change in the axis of her astigmatism. I hope this helps.


Julian 29 Jul 2003, 15:59

It means just what it says, really; Mickey states quite categorically that your vision has got worse and you need a new Rx - but you DON'T say you have trouble seeing with your glasses on, just that you have more troule seeing without them. In other words you can't interpret the blurred image you get when you go bareyed the way you used to. Keep your glasses on indoors wen you feel you need them - and of you still can't see then it's definitely time for a new test and a new Rx.

Love and kisses, Jules.

P.S. How about you, Anne? How didi your test go? J


Anneke 29 Jul 2003, 12:24

Okay Julian, thanks for the response. But you say my blur tolerance might be off, what does that mean? And why would I get it now I wonder.


tonym 29 Jul 2003, 08:50

Alan-

yes, I am myopic - R -7.50, L - -6.25

I have no idea why the prisms are not balanced in each eye. I have checked my last Rx again and what I have put down is correct. I have also looked at the previous Rx - which was 7 Out, 2 up and 5 down. I know I always cause the optician problems when he comes to test this - he always "complains" about number of lenses he has to fit in the trial frame - but I think he really enjoys something out of the ordinary. All I know is that my sight is pretty poor and I couldn't make out anything "singly" without my glasses on. Sorry I can't be of more help.


Alan 29 Jul 2003, 07:06

Tonym - Are you also myopic? What is the sphere part of your Rx?

Do you know why the prism is not balanced between the two eyes? I would have thought they would make it even in the two eyes, since the point of prism is for binocular vision (it doesn't mean anything when only one eye is doing the seeing). Just curious if your doc has said anything about this.


tonym 29 Jul 2003, 06:43

Alan-

I have prisms, and have had them in my Rx for many years - just after I started wearing glasees at the age of 8 or 9. My current Rx has 8 out, 3 up in the right eye, and 7 down in the left eye. I also have -4.50 cyls for astigmatism which has gradually increased over the years. At one stage, I had those stick-on prisms, as the Rx wasn't very stable.I had an op (on the left eye) to try to correct the problem. This worked for a short time and then slipped back. As soon as I take my glasses off I see double, up and down- hopeless, especially with the short-sight and astigmatism.


Chis 29 Jul 2003, 03:48

Alan, I got prism correction a little over a year ago. I was getting headaches and having difficulty focusing when I was tired and getting a bit of double vision when lookimh at text. At first I would only wear my glasses with prism correction at home when I was tired, and continued with my lenses the rest of the time. But once you start having prism correction it's hard to do without it. My Christmas the double vision and headaches were worse, so I had another eyetest. The prism correction is now 1 1/2 up, 1 out in one eye; 1 1/2 down, 1 out in the other. It was suggested I wore my glasses full time as prism correction can't be put into contacts. However, I didn't like the glasses I chose, so I resisted wearing them, but by Feburary the headaches and double vision were so bad that I went out and chose some different glasses. These days I wear them all the time.


Julian 28 Jul 2003, 23:28

Anne: speculation apart, Dollond and Aitchison will tell you the right answer this evening.

Anneke: if you see well with your present glasses, it could just be that your tolerance of the blur has gone off. Wear them more...and another test will do no harm.

Love and kisses, Jules.


? 28 Jul 2003, 20:57

Anne, from all the figures you gave and the distance you can and can't read the screen, my sums come up with....about...-14.25 Sphere, -2 Cyl at precisely 84 Axis in the Left eye and -14.75 Sph, -2.25 Cyl at 82 Axis. Now the thickness will definately depend on the frames you choose. The larger, the better for all of us here. Post the picture of you wearing them when you get them OK.


mickey 28 Jul 2003, 18:55

anneke

Your vision got worse.You should definetely sse your eye doctor.Good luck and let us know the results.


Anneke 28 Jul 2003, 13:56

I'm 41 now and have had a prescription for ten years or so, so I was a bit of a late starter by standards here. My prescription is -2 and I've always managed to get by without glasses alot of the time. Now increasingly I find that I'm noticing the difference between my corrected and uncorrected vision, which has never bothered me before. If I'm sitting a few feet (like ten or more) across a room from someone I can't see their features yet I'm sure that a year ago I could. I even notice myself thinking that I could see much more with my glasses on and find myself wearing them more and more around the house, something I've never done before. Although I don't absolutely need them it's more comfortable.

What's happening here, does anyone know or has anyone heard of something similar? Surely at my age I can't be getting more myopic? I have absolutely no problem with seeing things close up which is what I hear happens when you get to 40. Thanks for listening.


Mal 28 Jul 2003, 13:32

Anne - good luck with your exam tomorrow, let us know how you get on. I'm curious about your friends' reactions when you started wearing glasses again after a long period without. And during that time that you didn't wear them, didn't you feel you really needed them, or was it only in the last couple of years that you've noticed it. I've never heard of any thing like that before. Hope you don't mind me asking. I guess that even with the old scratched glasses you've been wearing them full time right?


Curt 28 Jul 2003, 12:59

Heather: I don't think that a traumatic injury could induce astigmatism. If an object hit your eye (like a ball), the eye would compress and then return to its normal shape. But very few eyeballs are perfectly spherical, so most folks have some degree of astigmatism. I think what happens is that 1) we become more astigmatic as we get older and 2) we tolerate it less well as we get older. I have no scientific evidence to support this, just my own experience and the experience of friends and co-workers who have experienced this...


Alan 28 Jul 2003, 12:01

Chris - When did you get prism correction? Did your eye doctor talk to you about why it was necessary and how it would help? (Do you know how much there is?) I'm curious about the topic, because I don't have a good understanding of when or why it's helpful.


Chris 28 Jul 2003, 11:53

Heather - I have a fair amount of astigmatism; my current rx is right -4.50 sphere, -4.00 cyl and left -5.00 sphere, -4.00 cyl (with some prism correction too).

I didn't get glasses until I was in my early teens (although, in retrospect I think that I had needed them for at least a year before hand), but there was no astigmatism. The cyl correction started in my late teens and as crept up gradually; it got bumped up another -0.50 at my last eyetest in December. Don't know why its happened though. having such a degree of astigmatism it's impossible to see anything at any distance without correction.


Alan 28 Jul 2003, 11:29

Heather - I'm not sure if people are usually born with much astigmatism, but I think it's pretty common for astigmatism to develop/progress. I think most (at least 'many') people with a substantial amount of astigmatism developed it as children or adolescents.

I'm not sure a lot is known about how it typically occurs. It's probably related to how myopia develops - some kind of pressure or stress causes the eye to elongate (in myopia), and perhaps just to elongate or contract irregularly in the case of astigmatism. There are cases where something more serious is going on - I met a friend in college whose eyes were, for a long time, growing wider and longer, but not taller. So she became very nearsighted and also very astigmatic. She had an operation to curb this growth and she said it seemed to help a lot. (She was like -12 sph/ -3/-4 cyl...but it hadn't changed much for a while. She was probably 19 or so at the time.)


Heather 28 Jul 2003, 08:23

Question about astigmatism...

Once I heard that people were more or less born with astigmatism. I always thought I was out of the woods, as I didn't have it. But, I have developed astigmatism (mild) as an adult, and I see on these boards that people do have their astigmatism get worse and worse.

Does anyone have any idea what might cause astigmatism to develop, and/or worsen? I haven't been able to find anything useful on the internet, and maybe nobody knows. I do know when I was a teen-ager I got hit in the eye with a baseball, and then I got hit in the other eye with a towel. Could that cause the irregularities that constitute astigmatism?


Anne 28 Jul 2003, 07:13

Just grabbing 10 minutes from work. Went to a firm called Dollond & Aitchison. They wrote my old prescription down: Right eye -2.75 -1.25 90, Left eye -2.25 -0.75 100. Have booked a proper appointment for tomorrow afternoon at 5pm. Hope this helps in terms of any more ideas, but it doesn't really matter too much.

Someone asked how I manage in the meantime: without my glasses not well in almost any setting now. But with them, sort of OK. I can watch television and make out roughly what is happening from a few feet away, even if its not fantastically clear. I can read books and papers easily. If I go to see a film once a month or so, I follow the plot. I don't drive. Going from my home to the City there's just one bus goes past my stop. On the way back, I just ask someone for the number and I can see to get off, no problem. I use my computer by moving the screen towards me and moving closer to the screen. Restaurants are usually OK, although sometimes a bit dark. The only problem is with pubs and wine bars and, on the few occasions I go to one, clubs. But we usually go with a group. My friends know my eyesight has been a bit poor lately and they usually watch out for me when I'm meeting them, or we go somewhere together. It's not that bad, she says.

It will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow. My BF Jake hasn't been too bad either. He knew me from before I wore glasses and we've been together about 9 months. He says as long as I see Ok it's all that matters. Hope he feels the same way after my test tomorrow evening.

Byeeeee.


Andreas 28 Jul 2003, 02:17

Hi Anne,

if you can read only at 7 inches without all i would expect something like -4.5 or even a bit higher, but please check it.

Best regards,

Andreas


Anne 28 Jul 2003, 02:09

Can't stay long, because I'm at work. I've decided to go to the local optician near the office at lunchtime and book an appointment. If I can, I'll also ask them to tell me what the current prescription of my glasses is. I'll try to let you know later today what it is. Shame no-one could help, but that was probably down to my not knowing very much about the subject. Thanks anyway.


Mal 27 Jul 2003, 13:47

Anne - how did you get around before you gave in and started wearing your glasses again? Iy's hard to tell what your prescription might be because it's confused by the fact that you're wearing a prescription that we don't know the strength of and telling us you can't see more than 3-4ft away. I guess you have a reasonable rx in those glasses if you used to wear them all the time till you were 16, they are the same pair are they? My rx is -2.75 and from what you say about distance that you can read from the screen I'd guess that you're prescription will be more than mine. I wear my glasses all the time, I really couldn't imagine functioning without them (except maybe for reading because I don't have astigmatism so that's easy for me so long as its not too far away). When are you due at the opticians? I'll be interested to hear what rx you come out with and betting its more than mine to know how you've coped without correction for all these years! You must be ignoring lots of people in the street, don't they notice??


Anne 27 Jul 2003, 11:43

Thanks for the replies. I am shortsighted, myopic that is - I know that. Maybe this will help you help me a bit more: I can't remember the prescription but I know that when I first had them they helped me to do things like see a blackboard from a few yards away. Also the TV from any distance. Nowadays, I don't think I could see a blackboard and even wearing my glasses I can't see what's on telly clearly unless I am about 3-4ft away. Sitting in front of the computer right now, with glasses on and about 2ft from the screen I can't read anything, even on maximum text size: I have to come in to about half that distance to read what I've written. My right eye is worse than the left, for that I need to come in to about 9 inches.

My glasses are just semi-oval metal ones, fairly small and thin, about 4.75 inches from end to end. The lenses are plastic and they sort of stick out at the back of the frame: the right one is about 5mm wide at the outside but narrows to 4.2mm on the inside, near the nose. The left is about 4mm wide all round. Both have been sort of "flattened" off at the sides, probably to make them look thinner. As I say, I'm not ducking out of going to an optician's visit and everyone knows that I wear glasses already, but I'd like to be prepared. If anyone can help I'd be grateful.


Smudgeur 27 Jul 2003, 03:44

Anne

What do your current lenses look like? If you hold your glasses at arms length and look at something is it magnified or does it look smaller? If it is magnified then you are probably long-sighted (hyperopic) if smaller then you are probably short-sighted (Myopic).

Can't guess what your prescription may be, but suggest that you get your eyes tested a.s.a.p. and then let us know the result and there are plenty who visit this board who will be able to give further advice.

Good luck - and don't be afraid. As Christy said you'll be amazed at your clear vision once you get some glasses in your proper prescription.


Christy 27 Jul 2003, 01:14

Anne - the only shock you'll get is a pleasant one when you find out how clear your vision is supposed to be.


Anne 26 Jul 2003, 23:05

Hi there. I'm not sure whether this is the right place to post this query, but can't seem to find aywhere else.

I am 24 years old. I live in England. I have had glasses since I was 10 and wore them all the time until I was 16 but then vanity meant I stopped wearing them (boys and that) and I have never been back to see my optician. Sorry, don't know the exact prescription.

In the past two years or so my eyesight has got worse. About 12 months ago, when I found I couldn't see to work properly on my computer I started wearing my old glasses again. Thing is, they aren't all that great now (boring) and are a bit scratched. Also, I still can't see very well even with them on. Without them, even with the text size up to maximum, I can't see this screen properly. I have to come up to about 7 inches from the screen to do that. With them, I have to come about 12 inches away to see properly, although I can just about manage to about 15 inches by screwing my eyes up. I also have to play with them to see better. Luckily, I don't drive, but things are difficult for me lately. It's all a bit annoying.

Everyone's used to seeing me with them now, so that's not such a worry. I am obviously going to go to an optician. My question is: can anyone tell me roughly what to expect and what my prescription will be based on what I've just written. I don't mind so much, but I just don't want any nasty shocks.

Thanks.


Lee 25 Jul 2003, 21:53

Hi,

Sorry I haven't kept in touch for a while. Been waiting for the eye doctor to have his visual field test machine fixed -- first they told me 3 weeks and then 1 week - so I made an appointment with a different doctor -- and today picked up my daughter's records from the doctor who suspected Glacoma and then said I shouldn't worry - doesnt mean she has it. Anyway for those of you who understand these numbers, I will try and type them here for your input. This is confusing to me so I hope you understand it. Her present OD with her old glasses before the new ones says:OD 125-0.75X162 OS 1.75-1.25X85. Then it says OD 2.75-1.00X54 and OS 4.00-0.50X38 (there's an AR before that one). Sorry if I'm confusing - this is greek to me. Next it says MR OD 2.50-0.75x155/30 and OS 3.50-0.25x70/50. Looks like it doubled. Next it says CYCLO OD 2.50-1.00x157 and OS 3.75-0.25x50 (wonder if that's her present prescription?). Does this make any sense to anyone? Next I have Heidelberg reports - pictures (Retina Tomograph II) which suggests moderate to advanced Glacoma. Too detailed for me to explain here. It does say Focus: -5.00 dpt Depth 2.25 mm (OD) The next picture says among other things Focus 5.00 dpt Depth 2.50 mm OS (suggesting moderate Glacoma) Any opinions would be appreciated. We have appointment with another doctor Tuesday and I am bringing these reports to him. Don't know who to trust anymore. She doesnt want to wear her glasses - says they are making her vision worse and hurt her eyes and that she sees just "fine" when she reads. She's very self conscious about her looks being a pre-teen (and a very pretty one at that - not to boast - smile). Thanks for listening. Hope you all are doing well.

Lee


Marcel 25 Jul 2003, 18:02

Thank you so much for your good advice and support.

Nadine doesn't like contacts. I tried it once and I didn't feel comfortable with them. I have no problems wearing my glasses. As Nick mentioned even with low -1,75 in both eyes it's quiete a difference with or without them.

Therefore I'm a full time wearer.

Nadine had an idea. Perhaps we should make an appointment with an eye doctor who could explain the situation and my family would accept it. But I'm afraid it won't work. Anyway - I won't hide. I'm a full time wearer and they have to accept this. When I once tried to visit them bareeyed I had a headache and didn't feel comfortable and had to squint.

Never again. But it's kind of a difficult situation and I notice that I don't visit them as much as before I went full time.


Nick 25 Jul 2003, 04:11

Hey, Jo. I wouldnt say that Im enjoying wearing my glasses, but I certainly feel a lot more comfortable about wearing them. Even though my rx is relatively low (-2; in one eye, -2.25 in the other), wearing my glasses makes most day to day tasks like shopping and work so much easier I really didnt realise how much I wasnt seeing until I went full time and theres no more problems about not having my glasses when I need them. Even in those situations where I could probably manage without them (such as pubs and clubs) I still wear them because I like been able to see things clearly.

I did find the first few weeks difficult, as I had a problem accepting that I needed to wear glasses. People commenting on my glasses made me very self-conscious, even though most of the comments were positive. Now having been a full-time wearer for 6 weeks, I accept that there is a choice between clear vision and glasses and blurry vision without. The clear vision wins and (mostly) the comments have stopped. People expect to see me in my glasses now; my new gf saw a fairly recent picture of me bared-eyed and was quite surprised I didnt have glasses on. Apparently, she thinks I look better with them on. I really feel sorry for Marcel because of his familys reaction. My mum wasnt too keen on my glasses at first - but these days she accepts that I need them.

At the weekend I met up with some mates from school who I hadnt seen for about six months and they were really the last of the people I know who hadnt seen me in glasses. I did get a few comments about my glasses, but these days I dont feel too self-conscious about them. I had an interesting sighting whilst I was out. We came across a guy who was a bit of a tough guy at school. He was short sighted but refused to wear his glasses, presumably because they didnt fit his image. But he was there at the pub wearing glasses. He's a full time wearer these days too, had an interesting conversation with him about going full time and wearing glasses.


DelDoc 24 Jul 2003, 16:28

To expand on what Dr.S. posted below, the biochemical reason for the change in refraction with increases in blood glucose level is tied to osmosis and diffusion of solutes. The lens of the eye actually swells and causes the eye to become more nearsighted or less farsighted (i.e., a myopic shift).


Bowser 24 Jul 2003, 08:20

Regarding family reactions to new full-time wear; my parents live about 200 miles away, and I just sort of sprung it on them. I had never really thought about mentioning the "new" me to my Mom before just showing up at the house. I must admit, I was quite anxious the whole drive up wondering what the reaction would be. She was used to seeing me using my old prescrition for reading however. The whole thing was quite anti-climactic, thank goodness, so I worked myself up over nothing. It would have been very uncomfortable to experience negative remarks however.

Bowser..


Dr.S. 24 Jul 2003, 05:19

Folks who are experiencing small but significant prescription changes around age 50 may want to have their blood sugar checked. I am 56 and over the past few years have acquired a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. I am supposed to manage this by eating properly; the result is that my blood sugar runs higher than it used to do and it moves around more. I am also finding that my distance refraction changes significantly depending on what I ate yesterday. I now have trifocals with about -1D and some cylinder for distance correction , and +1.25 and +2.50 segments, and they are great because some mornings I can see better out of the distance portion, and other days I get clearest distance vision throught the intermediate segment. If you search the internet you will find there is quite a bit of literature confirming that blood sugar has a significant effect on refractive status.


Christy 23 Jul 2003, 23:47

Another way to deal with awkward families: Go and visit them - and if they make any more comment - remove your glasses. Next - walk clumsily into priceless ornaments - knocking over and breaking things as you blunder from room to room. Calmly say "I'm sorry - but I'm blind without my glasses!"


angie 23 Jul 2003, 15:49

Marcel, in terms of what's easier, I agree with everyone who's been suggesting contacts.

However, if you have to put contacts on every time you visit your family, it creates a situation where you have to "hide" from your family. And it doesn't address what I think is the big issue--it was really RUDE of your mother to say that. You may be her child, but that doesn't mean she doesn't owe you good manners.

Personally, I would continue to wear the glasses around the family. If anyone makes a similar rude comment, just respond very calmly, "That was very rude. Why would you say such a thing?" And if the comments keep coming, you can say "If it bothers you so much, you're welcome to buy me a pair of contacts. Otherwise, I would prefer to keep my glasses and good vision."


Clare 23 Jul 2003, 14:21

Opal, I think that's a sound suggestion for Marcel and as a regular CL wearer I'd certainly advocate them for situations when you want to be more private about your eyesight. But then again I think if it's Marcel's decision to go ahead and commit to being a glasses wearer then I think that his family have to get used to it, although I'm sure it's hard for him. I'm really coy about my vision so resort to wearing CLs most of the time, and in a delicate situation like that then that's what I'd probably do if all I wanted was to see well. The antagonist in me says he needs to show them that he's master of his own decisions here and so I think he should tough it out and show them that i) he feels he needs glasses to see well and ii) that he's comfortable with wearing them to achieve it.

Just so it doesn't look like I think I have everything sorted I'd just like to add that I'm still really funny about wearing glasses with my mother and very close friends. It may be because they knew me before I had them, but its also partly (and probably significantly) to do with the fact that I HATE to admit I need them!! Solution? Heaven knows, there probably isn't one!!


Christy 23 Jul 2003, 14:01

My family said virtually nothing when I got glasses. I think one of my brothers (who also got glasses) was the first to mention it. The other one never mentioned it. My mother casually mentioned it after a couple of years. My father's stayed silent about it. Funny things families!


Opal 23 Jul 2003, 13:45

marcel -

i feel like i'm violating my own principles in writing this, glasses-lover that i am, but i also live in a family where they are viewed negatively. (though not nearly as bad as yours! my mother would never dream to say that to me)

have you tried wearing contacts around your parents, and then glasses most of the time, when you're with your friends or nadine? i love it when guys wear glasses, and think they look super hot that way, but it might be a solution to stop your parents criticizing while still being able to see well.


JJ 23 Jul 2003, 06:45

I am 49 and have a light RX. L-1 R-.25 with add 1.75. I was given acuvue bifocal contacts and HATED them. I went to another eye doctor and was given Focus Progressive which I liked better but couldn't see at night. I ened up with one regular and one progressive. This year I have true monovision and am using acuvue2 which I really like but not everyone can do monovision. I do not understand why you cannot not have bifocal contacts especially since they come in a variety of strengths. I would seek out another eye doctor.


OPTIFAN 23 Jul 2003, 01:23

Ive just had an exam and have been given the following prescription.

L and R +0.5 ADD 1.25.No astig

My previous prescription was L -0.5 -0.25x 180 R -0.5 -0.25x90 add 1.0

I am confused as to why my prescription has reversed.

Secondly because of my job i dont like having to constantly take my reading glasses on and off so i asked the optician if i would be suitable for bifocal contact lenses.Yes your perfect he said and made an appointment to see the contact specialist.

I was surprised and embarrased when without even giving me a trial she said your not suitable and i wont give you contacts.

Does anybody know why my prescription could have changed or why i could not get lenses.

By the way i am now 50 y/o


Christy 23 Jul 2003, 00:34

Marcel - put yourself up for adoption and find another family!


Marcel 22 Jul 2003, 23:59

Hi Jo and others,

Yes, my relatives nerves me a lot because I'm a fulltime wearer now.

Especially my mother is furious about this and thinks I'm kind of disabled because no one wears specs in our family. Although Mom and Dad are in their fourties they have no readers.

My grandpa is in his sixties and he seems to have eagle eyes too. So it's a great issue in my family. My siblings have no vision problems and I'm the only one in this family.

I have no problems with my friend Nadine who is a glasses wearer. She thinks I look very hot in them.

Several of our friends wear specs. So that's no problem. Only with my family.

My mother said: Could you do me a favour please. Don't wear your glasses if you are around us. You are such a nice looking boy but with your glasses you look kind of ugly. I can't stand it. I said I won't do this because I'm used to wear my glasses all day now and I have problems to copy without them. I'm 18 and I have - 1,75 in both eyes.

What can I do? I asked my friends who wear glasses. Nobody has ever problems with this.


Jo 22 Jul 2003, 09:08

Marcel and Nick, areyou still out there? I seem to remember you,or your family, had some issues about you going full time/wearing glasses more often. Tell us how you've been getting on.


ANON 18 Jul 2003, 15:10

LOUISE

What was your old prescription? Have you tried wearing your glasses all the time and not just for reading?


Bowser 18 Jul 2003, 08:17

Thanks Maggie. Very interesting. That would explain it. All of the different colored displays on the clocks are very sharp with the glasses on; however, the red ones are still a bit more difficult to bring into exact focus with my right eye, the one with the slight asitgmatism. Maybe the +1.00 isn't enough?

Bowser..


Maggie 17 Jul 2003, 14:25

Bowser,

Please refer to something I posted on 1 June on the Vision thread. Your observation would seem to indicate that you are still farsighted even with correction.

Mags


Christy 17 Jul 2003, 12:25

Bowser - it's something to do with the different wavelengths of light. But wait for one of the resident experts to tell you more!


Bowser 17 Jul 2003, 12:10

I've been noticing something that I can't seem to figure out. I am very recent convert to full-time with mild farsightedness and mild astigmatsm (I've got a note to get a copy of my Rx tomorrow on my day off). There are two clocks in my kitchen that have red lighted displays that are darned near impossible to distinguish regardless of the light level. Also in the kitchn is a microwave with a blueish display. This is not as blurry. In the bedroom are two clocks with green displays and they seem to be somewhere between the blue and red in levels of blurriness.

Any idea why the difference in the level of blurriness? (without the glasses of course...) :-)

Bowser..


Anon 16 Jul 2003, 16:35

Louise.

What was your old prescription? Have you tried wearing your glasses all the time and not just for reading?


specs4ever 16 Jul 2003, 02:14

Lee, contacts are usually fine for a responsible 12 year old, but those 2 words don't usually go well together. But, the problem with getting her contacts is that she would wear them all the time, even for close work, which, although the experts are divided on this, often tends to increase the child's prescription at a faster pace. A good doctor will re examine your daughter's eyes no charge if she really can't adapt to the glasses, and if he made an error in the prescription, he will have the lenses re made at no charge. And, as long as she is under a -3.50D, let her decide when she wants to wear her glasses. At some point in her life the blur is going to dictate far better than a Mom.


Julian 16 Jul 2003, 01:43

Lee: 20 inches? That's pretty close to 50 cm. - he doesn't mean she's -2 does he? In general it's a good idea to wear a new prescription for a few days and let the eyes get used to it. But your eye doc sound a real dork.

Love and kisses, Jules.


Lee 15 Jul 2003, 21:55

Thanks to all who wrote me back! I don't know the numbers re her prescription but will let you know when I get them from the doctor. I phoned the doctor today and he tried to reassure me that she will be fine and that not to worry about glacoma as it could be the field test will come out ok and this is just the way her eyes are. As far as my daughter goes, well I told her to wear her glasses and she is miserable. She said when she walks out in the street she just can't look in the distance she looks down sometimes when she walks and said the glasses bother her cause, of course, she sees ok from close. The poor thing :( I feel so bad for her - I told her to take them off then and I will try and get her to another doctor. The doctor told me on the phone that she can't see more than 20 inches away so I asked her to read something from a distance and she couldnt see it. I had them put the new lenses in her old frames as our insurance doesnt pay for new frames every year - think that is bothering her and she wants contacts sooo bad but I'm afraid she will lose them, or break them etc. Money is tight right now being a single mom with two kids. Too bad once the lenses were cut for the frames we cant change them now. Anyhow, thanks for all your advice. She only wants to wear the glasses when she watches TV. I can understand the feeling of walking in the street and what she is trying to tell me. Well that's all for now - will keep you posted and thanks again for listening and writing back. This really is a nice Board and I'm happy I ran across such nice people online!

Peace and huggsss,

Lee


Lore 15 Jul 2003, 16:49

Lee,

I would highly recommend finding a new eye doctor ASAP. Your daughter is going to dread going to the eye doctor if she has to see someone who is going to be so discouraging and alarmist. There are plenty of eye doctors out there who deal with higher prescriptions in a very straightforward, reassuring, and calming way, and it will make her life (well, at least the one day of her life she actually spends on the eye doctor's each year) much easier if she sees one of them.

I speak from experience, having had to see (for insurance reasons) a terribly pessimistic, alarmist, and misinformed eye doctor for eight years. I used to dread going to get my eyes checked more than you could believe. He was constantly talking about how terrible my eyes were and how much worse they were going to get. I didn't even realize until I moved and saw a new eye doc how insensitive, unprofessional, and unnecessary his attitude was.

He was the second eye doctor I saw. I got my first glasses when I was 8, and they were -2.00. Two years later I went to see him, and I think my eyes were up to -3.00 or maybe even -3.50. He was so insensitive and discouraging, and took my parents into another room to scare them with stories of how awful my eyes were and how I was going to be horribly nearsighted and how my eyes were just going to get worse and worse. Well, I'm 25 now and haven't had a new prescription in 6 years, and my eyes are -5.50. That's only -2 more than I was when I first saw him, and -1 of that is from my first year in college. So, basically, in the eight years I saw him, my eyes only got worse by -1. His predictions were clearly wrong, but he continued to scare me and my parents at every single visit, about how they might start getting really bad really fast, and talking incessantly about how awful my vision was. It was terrible, and I really don't think anyone should have to deal with such an idiot for a doctor.

So, IMHO, take everything this guy said with a grain of salt and find someone more calm and reassuring to see from now on. No matter what happens with your daughter's vision, she will thank you for it.


Kate 15 Jul 2003, 12:25

Louise: I got headaches and eyestrain frequently. Especially at work. Glasses solved that.

I used a 2-for-1 offer when I first got glasses. That worked great. Picked out a black plastic frame and a semi-rimless metalframe in silver. Both pairs are from Guess. I like both of them.

Have you updated your glasses with your new prescription yet?


Louise 15 Jul 2003, 12:13

Spexfan I'm 17, and I wear my glasses essentially just for reading.

Hi Kate why did you go for an eye test? What sort of frames did you get?


Kate 15 Jul 2003, 11:06

Hi Louise,

I have a prescription similar to yours, farsighted and some astigmatism. Have had glasses since February this year. I wear mine all the time. Wasn't to thrilled at first but now I'm glad I have glasses. They look great, I can see great and boyfriend prefers me with glasses.

I do wish I had more pairs to choose (have 2 pairs) from but that will soon change. Visited an aunt last weekend. She have had glasses since the 70s and she wanted me to take some of her old pairs. She told me: She doesn't use them and if I can use them great! I picked up an aviator frame in gold/white and a plastic frame in crystal/red. Both frames are in good condition and OK in size. She had some that where huge. Now I just have to get new lenses in them.


Guido 15 Jul 2003, 04:10

Lee, when I was about that age, my mother was told by the ophthalmologist that I was very nearsighted. At the time I was about -2.50. I increased to a -7 script in time. So much for being "very nearsighted".


wbk 14 Jul 2003, 22:23

Hi lee,

Your daughter is at an age where it seems that nearsightedness progresses rather quickly, but usually tapers off in the later teen years, early twenties. If you can get the prescription numbers I'm sure many on this site could have more input. The doctor probably recommended full time wear because what she is able to see without correction is not good, as is evidenced by the fact that when she took her new glasses off, things were pretty bad. Sometimes we get used to our current prescriptions, and how we see, and do not realize that there is room for improvement until we get it. I experienced that many times over my years of wearing glasses, where I'm told that the significantly stronger prescription may cause headaches when I am getting used to them. What I usually find is that yes, it IS stronger, maybe causing some distortion initially or making me feel like my eyes are being pulled at, but that only lasts a very short while, if it happened at all, especially if the new glasses are that much better. The stronger lenses were not an issue because I would be so happy to suddenly have clearer vision. As far as wearing them all the time, if she can read okay without them then that is a time to take them off, as nearsightness doesn't necessarily mean she can't see close up either.And while the thought of her wearing glasses all the time might be bothersome to her (or you), encourage it now, because she will be so much better off. And when she gets used to seeing so well with her glasses, (and not seeing so well without them )she will naturally make them a part of her day. And I must say, it is a great part of the day!


tortoise 14 Jul 2003, 22:20

Lee; It would help to know the prescription. If she wasn't wearing glasses fulltime before it doesn't seem likely that it is "very strong". Kids are very adaptable and look to their parents for signals about how to react to changes in their lives. I hope you are not too distressed about something that is really so common among us all. Being nearsighted is not the end of the world and perhaps she needs to know that she can do anything she wants in glasses and that she looks great in them. If she wants to go without her glasses sometimes it won't damage her vision. Perhaps you need to see another eyedoctor whose way of communication is more reassuring for you and for your daughter. All the best to you both.


lee 14 Jul 2003, 22:03

Hi, my 12 year old daughter has been diagnosed as being very nearsighted. Her prescription doubled from last year according to a new doc we saw - who is also wanting to do a visual field test for Glacoma. The kid can read fine without glasses and today when she got the new prescription - don't know the numbers - but its strong, she said everything was jumping out at her and really really bright. The doctor's office said that the prescription might give her headaches for a while as they are so much stronger than her last one and that she had to wear the glasses all the time which made her cry. I don't want to play around with her eyes - we only get one set - but headaches lasting for weeks - I don't know about that. She hasnt gotten any headaches yet - as today is her first day of wearing them but said when she took them off everything looked worse. Any opinions would be appreciated. A field test was given to her about 3 years ago also and her peripheral vision was ok then. I don't know what to do or perhaps maybe I should just take her to another doctor to see what he says.


spexfan 14 Jul 2003, 20:31

How often are you wearing glasses at the moment, Louise? And how old are you?


Louise 14 Jul 2003, 16:26

I posted on here about getting my first pair of glasses nearly a year ago. Today I went for another eye test. Both my eyes have got a bit worse, and I have been prescribed +1.75 in each eye. How much worse are my eyes likely to get?


Julian 11 Jul 2003, 09:12

Petey: I assume you have just bought these glasses off the rack; if +1.75 is too strong buy a weaker pair, maybe +1.00 or +1.25. That's if trial and error is your method. The other option is to see an optometrist, have your eyes checked, and get properly prescribed glasses, which could conceivably be bifocals. You don't say how old you are; if you're under 40 you definitely ought to get them prescribed.

Love and kisses, Jules.


petey 10 Jul 2003, 23:32

i use +1.75 dollar store reading glasses, but these are too strong for computer work, what strength should i use for computer work or should i get bifocals?


 10 Jul 2003, 18:21

Hearty, I know that there are girls out there that wear the glasses lower down the nose if they have a larger or longer nose. A method to disguise the feature! I also notice that the girls that have a 'kink' nose that plasitc frames sit over or on top of the 'kink' and the that feature disapears (moslty middle eastern women). Glasses can be an added fashion accessory that (especially in our cases) impoves the appearance of the person.


Hearty 10 Jul 2003, 00:06

Thanks, Julian! I want stronger ones, anyway. ;)

Humm, so then my theory about my myopic friend is wrong. I have a girlfriend who wears her minus glasses quite far down her nose. I always thought perhaps that helped her see better, but from what you say, they would be less effective that way. Maybe it's just an excentricity of hers.

Hearty


Julian 09 Jul 2003, 04:47

Don't think so, Hearty. It's just the effect of increasing the distance between the plus lens and the eye, in the same scheme as pushing a minus lens closer to increase its effect.

Love and kisses, Jules.


Hearty 09 Jul 2003, 01:15

Hello! Does anyone know why, when I move my plus reading glasses out, away from my eyes a bit, text appears clearer and crisper? It gets larger, too. Does that mean I need stronger lenses?

Thanx! 8)


Clare 03 Jul 2003, 12:40

3Ms - how old are you? I'm 34 and with my -2.25 prescription I don't have any problem with seeing near stuff with my glasses on. You'll find people here ask this question alot because as you get nearer to 40 it gets harder to see close up if you're wearing a - rx glasses. But it may be that you're just not used to it because -.50 is not so strong. Someone here will have a view when we know how old you are!!


Julian 03 Jul 2003, 01:10

3Ms: how long have you had them? Is it possible your eyes need time to get used to making the extra effort to see things close up?

Love and kisses, Jules.


3Ms 03 Jul 2003, 00:05

In fact I'm wearing them for a driving, watching tv and computer work...so it's sometimes disturbing to take them off while reading things and put them back to look at the screen to avoid the eye strain...


Clare 02 Jul 2003, 11:50

Hi 3Ms, I wonder what these glasses were prescribed for? Was it just for driving? Sounds like you should stick with wearing them for distance! With this rx there's no real need to wear them for reading so I recommend taking them off. How often, and for what, are you wearing them?


Brian 02 Jul 2003, 03:01

3Ms-I wonder what your age is? Sounds to me like you might want to tell the doctor soon,or next time, about this condition.Of course since I wear bi-focals I would naturally say get them.But with your very light rx I am not sure why it would make a difference for reading.Can you hold a book or fine print at arms length and read okay with you specs on?


3Ms 01 Jul 2003, 23:50

I got low minus glasses (-0.5 and -0.25) recently but I'm having trouble seeing close up with them, once I remove them close up things look crystal clear...How can you explain this? Distance is clear with glasses on, no problems...


Julian 25 Jun 2003, 23:23

ali: kind of puzzled by your post. Your eyesight could have changed a lot in five years, and obviously has. It sounds quite likely you need glasses, but you say you don't want to get them unless you *need* them all the time. With any prescription you're likely to get, you *can* wear them all the time and will see better and may get rid of the headaches - but if you mean you don't want them unless you can't manage without them, well, you are doing that now. I'd say, have the test, get them, wear them and get the benefit. How old are you by the way; male? female?

Love and kisses, Jules.


Wurm 25 Jun 2003, 11:05

Regarding when to wear full-time, I think this should be added to the FAQ.

Looking back among the various threads, most minus wearers who were resistant to wearing specs went full-time at around -2 to -3. However there is a lot of individual difference and some people hold out longer than that.

Does that summary seem FAQ-worthy?


ali 25 Jun 2003, 09:26

sorry i haven't had an eye test for 5 years


ali 25 Jun 2003, 09:25

hi i'm getting loads of headaches and i'm having trouble reading far away things n stuff. I 've never had glasses or a prescription but i had an eye test for like 5 years. Could the headaches be related to a need for correction? Is there away of telling whether i really need glasses before i bother going to the opticians. Also i don't wanna get glasses unless i'm gonna need them all the time so could any 1 tell me wot prescription that is?

thanx ali


FW 24 Jun 2003, 12:57

I've read here you should hold your head slightly away from the eye piece. Thats supposed to increase it a bit. Otherwise look down here where there are some recommdendations. I think I read you should say the red is clearer when you get to that point too.


 24 Jun 2003, 12:54

Drink lots of alcohol before going.


Help!!! 24 Jun 2003, 12:08

Ive got an eye test tomorrow and i have to increase my rx slightly (first time wearer). I dont have much time to explain at the minuite, can anyone give me any suggestions as to how i could increase my rx slightly??? write asap!!! thanks! ps ill explain all later


Marcel 21 Jun 2003, 10:31

Hi Nick,

thank you so much for your support which I really need.

May I ask: Are you the first glasses wearer in the family. I'm in this situation and this makes it more difficult for me.


Myodisc 20 Jun 2003, 13:07

Help

An optometrist wont, but a psychiatrist might!!!


Nick 20 Jun 2003, 10:40

Marcel, I have a lot of sympathy for you and the difficult situation you find yourself in. My Rx is very similar to yours, and although I could probably cope without glasses for many things, full-time correction does make life easier. I certainly cant imagine doing without them anymore.

Going full-time can be quite difficult enough without any negative comments; I found it quite hard to accept the fact that I really needed to be wearing them most of the time. Your mothers comments are totally unhelpful. Although my mum has made a lot of comments about my glasses, she doesnt really have a problem with me wearing them, its just that shes not used to seeing me in them yet.

Trying to persuade your mother you look better in glasses will be hard, but as has been posted a lot before, most short-sighted people look better wearing their glasses than they do squinting and screwing up their eyes. Ive been looking at some recent photos today; the first set were of a mates stag party, just after Id got my new glasses but before I was wearing them full time, and the second set were of his wedding when I was wearing my glasses. I much prefer the way I look in the wedding photos, partly because its quite noticeable that Im really squinting in lots of the stag party photos, and partly because Im so used to the way I look in glasses now it seems odd not to be wearing them.


Puffin 18 Jun 2003, 16:50

I don't know. Do they fit over your hands?


 18 Jun 2003, 16:32

Help. When I put my hands over my eyes,

I can't see anything. Will glasses help?


Clare 18 Jun 2003, 13:47

Chris, in response to Marcel's post you raise an interesting point, that is people may express surprise seeing someone adapting to frequent glasses wearing, but are they entitled to express disapproval or regret?? You say yourself that some of your family prefer the way you look without glasses. My reaction is that it's your choice alone and that they shouldn't impose their views ...

Marcel, I'm surprised that your mother would be so vocal. I'm really sure that wearing glasses doesn't make you ugly (quite the contrary many here would argue!) and I think that the way -1.75s look are quite nice, not too strong, but strong enough ...

I feel a bit of a hypocrite here as I'm not really practicising what I'm preaching, but I do feel quite strongly that other people can make it more difficult than it need be and recognise that some people find it difficult enough to accept the situation anyway. Enough from me .... :)


Chris 18 Jun 2003, 13:26

Oops, I forgot to put my name on the post below.


 18 Jun 2003, 13:25

Nick, Marcel,

I think it is an acceptance thing; I think that people who don't realise that you have been having difficulties seeing things do tend to be surprised when people start wearing glasses.

When I was a school and first got glasses it was no big deal, even though I went from not wearing glasses to (virtually) full time wear, most people got used to it very quickly. They were well aware of the difficulties I was having and so there were few comments, mainly along the lines of "At last Chris has got some glasses". Earlier this year I went back to glasses because I needed prism correction. Yje fact I was having vision difficulties was far less obvious and I did get far more comments this time when I went full time. I know that some of my family prefer the way I look without glasses, but I prefer the fact that I can focus on a single image without headaches, so people have to accept the fact I wear glasses. PS I think this is moving into the realms of the Psychology of Glasses thread.


Julian 18 Jun 2003, 04:42

Well, Marcel, at the risk of labouring the point, the problem is hers not yours. She will just have to get used to the fact that she has a good-looking son with glasses. 'Spexy guys are sexy guys' - but it's taking here some time to realize that!

Love and kisses, Jules.


Marcel 18 Jun 2003, 01:42

Clare, Nick, Julian and Others,

my mother always says: You are such a goodlooking guy but with your glasses on you look so ugly. I have the feeling she thinks I looked kind of disabled with my glasses. It seems she has serious problems with this. The idea with the picture didn't work with my mother. I had the same idea and she was horrified.


Christy 17 Jun 2003, 07:18

Puffin - I can only speak in terms of -2.00 of astigmatism. When I first got glasses I found the correction for astigmatism made things look a bit odd - sort of skewed the wrong way! That didn't last more than a day - after which everything looked "normal".


Puffin 17 Jun 2003, 06:44

This question has been bugging me for days.

At what point does the correction for myopia start to cause minification and have an impact on post-correction visual acuity?

And does having astigmatism corrected increase the problem, either in proportion to the amount or by increased proportions?

I already have half an idea of the answer, or rather a range, I think it's somewhere around minus 15.


Leon 16 Jun 2003, 12:02

"Is it us being so hip or them being so unhip?"

;-)


Clare 16 Jun 2003, 11:25

Hello all. Just back from a week on a Balearic island where glasses wearing doesn't appear to be popular with the locals, not at all! Leon - they should all take a trip to northern Europe!!

Nick -it always amazes me when people make comments, what sort of things does your mother say, is the new you an issue for her?

This is really strange - the mother of a friend of mine, must be late in her late 60s was recently diagnosed myopic and I'd guess her prescription to be in the region of -2.50, she's never had glasses before. Now, of course, I wouldn't mention it for fear of embarrassing, but I wonder whether she only recently developed it, or if she's always seen like that and thought it normal. Weird.


Julian 16 Jun 2003, 06:24

Nick: I reckon you've done what we all expected, and it's the right thing. Why not get your mother a photo of you in glasses? if you wanted you could post it for us OOs to see as well.

Marcel: you say you have a problem with your family but the truth that *they* have the problem. YOU are short sighted (just a bit); you wear your glasses, you see well. No problem at all!

Love and kisses, Jules.


Nick 15 Jun 2003, 12:37

Clare, Marcel and Others,

Despite my relatlvely low RX, I am very definately a full time glasses wearer these days. I put them on when I'm getting ready in the morning and they stay on until I go to bed. I wouldn't say that I like wearing them especially, but wearing them is better than the alternative (not being able to see clearly and headaches)and my flatmate says that I look better wearing them than I did before when I kept squnting.

In terms of people's reactions, most of it has been positive. The people I see often are used to seeing me in glasses now. I still get comments about my glasses from people I don't see that often. I've seen my mum 3 or 4 times since I've gone full time and she's made some remark about my glasses on each occasion. I don't think she can get used to seeing me in them. Maybe I should have a picture taken and she could put it up and get used to me wearing glasses!!


EYEFUL 14 Jun 2003, 17:44

-2DIOPTERS


Puffin 14 Jun 2003, 16:28

How much worse?


EYEFUL 14 Jun 2003, 15:21

MY MYOPIC WIFE GOT A WORSENING OF HER VISION AFTER SWITCHING TO FULLTIME WEAR OF SOFT LENSES.HAS ANYONE ELSE HAD THIS EXPERIENCE?


Tammy 11 Jun 2003, 21:29

A while back i posted about how my sister was getting glasses for the first time in her life. Well, she's gotten her glasses and now tells me that she is nearsighted and asked me what i was -nearsighted or farsighted. Well, i told her that i'm nearsighted and also have some astigmatism, and i explained to her what astigmatism was, and i'm going to be seeing her in glasses for the first time this weekend. I still don't know her Rx though, and may never know.


See2 11 Jun 2003, 13:55

DelDoc,

I see that you're a Doc and that's great. It looks like you have been helpful to many on this board. Assuming that you are talking about the reading with minus lenses, I don't think Milly would be that interested in reading clinical trials! Sounds like you might, though. I can understand why someone with high myopia would feel the need to wear their glasses when reading up close, but not for someone with mild myopia. I'm sure there are always exceptions that you see that may not fit into that category, but again in general sense, eyestrain is reduced when the eyes can relax without further accommodation. Since it looks like you've been prescribing for a while, what do you tell your patients that have a slight degree of myopia when they ask you if they should wear them all the time?


DelDoc 10 Jun 2003, 14:59

See2--

Can you back up your advice to Milly with peer-reviewed clinical trials?


See2 10 Jun 2003, 14:02

Milly,

About your 6/7 post - Not sure how old you are, but most signs of nearsightedness now are beginning to show up in the 8-12 age group. Interesting to note that many years ago, progression into nearsightedness began later, usually in the 12-15 age group, and even later. You have a mild amount of nearsightedness now, and going without glasses is not going to damage your eyesight. Like others say, if you drive or require them for far viewing activities, it would be fine to get a pair and wear them. However, if you do get them, you will want to be certain not to wear them for reading or very close tasks, as that will generally worsen your normal vision to a greater degree.

Hope this helps.


Mike 10 Jun 2003, 12:05

Hi Milly,

then on the whole probably both of your

eyes need now about 1 year later after your first test about -0,5 more.

As you described, you are now already a little bit nearsighted with the usual problems: reading far signs and reading the board at school. If you drive cars I think you should get glasses for that.

At school without correction you probably have to move in the first rows, where you can still read when you squint probably, right ?

In fact it's up to you, how you proceed.

Probably your eyes will get a little worse in the next years, if you are in between 10 and 20 now. At any time, perhaps in 2 or 3 years, it may be that you absolutely need some correction, glasses or contacts, to see, because your eyes have got worse.

At present you can probably still get along without, maybe you get some wrinkles around the eyes from squinting.

From my experience I would advice you to get some glasses soon in order to have

a correction if necessary and just try them, when it's more pleasant to see with than without, just leave them on,

it's so normal to wear glasses today, and so many people do it, no problem there.

Please don't wait too long to get some glasses, it's not worth to run around in our nice world being half blind or always squinting.

Hope that helps, tell us something,

bye milly


Mike 10 Jun 2003, 02:06

hello Milly,

-1/1,34 cm = -0,75 diopters doesn't really change

for the other eye it's now more like

-1/0,85 cm = around -1,25 diopters

so I can understand, that you see more blurry with your one eye than with the other, later more,

best regards, Mike


Marcel 08 Jun 2003, 14:47

dear friends

When I was 17 I had - 0,75 in both eyes

and it was no problem to cope without glasses. A year later I had - 1,75 and my girlfriend convinced me to wear them more often. I noticed the difference and I'm almost a fulltime wearer now.

i had no problems with my friends. several of them are glasses wearer - but i do have problems with my family because i'm the first glasses wearer.

Although my parents are in their forties and my grandfather in his sixties they don't even have readers.

My girlfriend is joking about this because when we visit them it's a great issue with my parents, grandfather and siblings. And it nerves so very much to hear their dull statements for example you have to wear glasses because you eat too much fastfood, you are working too much with your computer and things like this. Look at us: We all have eagle eyes. You are 18 and you have to wear glasses. That's so silly. You will worsen your eyes. Do you think you look more interesting and older if you wear glasses? Can you imagine the way I feel in situations like this?

Matt how old were you when you began to wear your glasses fulltime?


milly 07 Jun 2003, 09:17

mike could you tell me whether i cshould be wearing glasses all the time with my prescription (rough) and whether you think i could carry on without any corectio without damaging my sight? thanks


GettingWorse 07 Jun 2003, 09:13

Hello,

I last posted about a year ago about my worsening eyesight.

In my 20s my sight was about about -1 to -1.5 in my right eye and about -.25 in my left (I don't have the prescriptions).

But recently, over a period of about six-seven years I have found myself with higher and higher prescriptions.

In June 1996, when I had my eyes tested the test showed:

Right Eye: Sphere -2.00 Cyl: -1.00

Left Eye: Sphere: -0.75 Cyl: -0.25

In late December 2001 it was:

Right eye: Sphere: -2.75 Cyl: -1.50

Left eye: Sphere: -1.50 Cyl: -0.75

Last week, my eyes were tested again and the prescription is now:

Right eye: Sphere: -3.25 Cyl: -1.75

Left eye: Sphere: -2.25 Cyl: -1.00

I'm in my mid-40s, in good health. I need a +1.25 correction for long sight as well, but I make do by bringing books or papers up to my face.

That it should happen at my age sounds quite surprising. Does anyone have an idea as to what might be happening?

I now have to wear glasses full-time.

Thank you


Jo 07 Jun 2003, 00:40

Marcel, if I remember correctly you did not want to wear your glasses but your girlfriend was nagging you. Do tell us a bit more about what happened. When (and why) did you start wearing them more? How often did you wear them? Did you go quickly full time? What were people's reactions?


Clare 06 Jun 2003, 14:03

Marcel - I don't have the tag of being the absolute first in my family, a cousin on my father's side is myopic (-3 I'd guess) and interestingly her two teenage daughters are already into fulltime wear), but both my parents are just presbyopic in their middle years. I can understand that it might be a curiosity for anyone who's seen to be the first in their family. In my family we don't really talk about it - I'd really hate that!! Are you converted to fulltime wear now?


Clare 06 Jun 2003, 13:52

I'm thinking that this discussion about reactions from other should be under Psychology of Glasses since it relates directly to perceptions - our own and those of others. What strikes me is that there are the conflicts between our own perceived need and the expectactions of others. Take Matt's example of his grandfather - doesn't that relate directly to (and I recall this with my own grandmother) the assumption that all young people have good strong eyes and that the only people that didn't have were older people (who were presumably experiencing presbyopia) - I think that goes back to the days when people's visual expectations might have been lower (no driving, no movies and probably not the acceptance of glasses that we have today). Then comes our own expectation, which we know differs from person to person. Somewhere under -3 it remains possible to manage without full time correction I believe and those of us in that region make our own decision as to if we are prepared to brave the initial curiosity of our close friends and go for it in the name of clear vision. When you get to the point where you can't see enough of anything, this process which to some must seem futile is beyond consideration.


milly 06 Jun 2003, 13:44

sorry i typed 95 when my right eye was really 85 cm and i redid my left eye to and that is 134cm could you tell me what it is roughly now please?


Taro 06 Jun 2003, 13:39

Matt! When I read this trend, my feeling will be very happy and getting to feeling that I find real body! Becuase in this site there are many of falks who has same problem so we can shear this problem and undarsting each other so I want to be also your friend too so Please e-mail me! I've been looking forward to responding and starting to talking our experience.

goya2714@hotmail.com


Taro 06 Jun 2003, 13:33


Matt 06 Jun 2003, 13:26

Clare, Marcel, interesting what you were saying about you family's reactions, I had a similar experience. I explained to my parents that I was going to start wearing my glasses all the time because I didn't feel safe walking around without them and they accpeted that, the first time my grandad saw me as a full time wearer he wouldn't accept that I couldn't do without them. It was some big family gathering, a wedding, I think, I guess I'd been full time for about six weeks or two months, so I it wss the first time that a lot of people I only met occasionally would have seen me in glasaes. Anyway, I'd just got some new frames and by now was feeling much more confident about how I looked in glasses. I got quite a few comments about the glasses, some people said things like "I didn't know you wore glasses" or "Your glasses really suit you". My grandad's comments were something along the lines of "Why are you wearing glasses, you are young enough that you can cope without them". When I tried to explain that I really couldn't cope without them anymore he was insistent that I was being silly and would only make my eyes worse.


Taro  06 Jun 2003, 12:51

Hi Marcel!

I also really want to interesitng about Nick and Clare and I can understand your feeling because I'm also first wear in my familiy so I'm still bit of embarrass wearing them in front of other so please listen your experience how did you overcome this feeling? please e-mail me!


Marcel 06 Jun 2003, 12:28

Hi Nick and Clare,

I'm curious too. How did your parents and siblings act when they saw you wearing glasses?

My parents and my siblings can't understand this at all. They ask me questions all the time and they believe it had to do with my life style because I'm the first glasses wearer in our family. It nerves a lot!!!


milly 06 Jun 2003, 12:27


Taro 06 Jun 2003, 11:29

Hi I want to make pen pal from America or Europe I want to become friend with person who wear glasses and nearsighted. I also wear them too and my RX is still mild and it's -3 of both. I'm from Japan and 31 years old male. My mail address is goya2714@hotmail.com so I'll tell my regular mail address as responding! I've been looking forward nice and good responding as many as possible.


Mike 06 Jun 2003, 11:16

Hi Milly,

then your prescription changed probably

left from -0,25 to -0,75 dioptrien= -1/1,37 m

and right from -0,75 to -1 dioptrie= -1/0,95 m

that's only an estimation, of course,

best regards,

Mike


Andrew 05 Jun 2003, 14:55

As a -8 wearer, I can do most things which do not involve seeing details without my glasses, but there is no real point to it. I can read without them, but it's a bit like watching a film from the front row of the cinema. I can cross the road without them, but it makes predicting the speed of oncoming vehicles that much harder. The one thing I can't do without my glasses is find them again when I've taken them off somewhere and put them down!


Clare 05 Jun 2003, 14:45

Nick - have you had any reaction from your folks yet? My mother always acted surprised if she saw me wearing glasses, yet when I'd accepted wearing them to watch TV she said she had known that I couldn't see and so had actively encouraged me to wear them. Parents are a bit of a contradiction in this respect. I sometimes wonder if they are a discouraging factor and whether people are wary of their comment - think of what Marcel has told us about his parents reaction for example ... I wonder why we worry?


milly 05 Jun 2003, 13:10

around 95 cm in my right eye and 137 cm in my left eye


Matt 05 Jun 2003, 12:31

I totally agree with Lore. I put off wearing glasses full time as long as humanly possible, but by the time my rx was over -4.00, I felt I was a danger to myself (and probably others) if I didn't wear my glasses all the time. I can't imagine how anybody with an rx of -7 or -8 could cope without correction, they must take their lives in their hand everytime they cross the road.


Mike 05 Jun 2003, 09:38

Hi Milly,

do you already know your current prescription ?

If not, you can cover one eye and

do the following test:

Go seeing only with one eye away from the screen to that distance that you

can still just read these lines on the

screen comfortably and WITHOUT any squinting. If you then measure the distance in inches or cm wherefrom you can still read these lines without squinting, and if you post the values, we can make a first guess at your current prescription.

see you, Mike


MinusWatcher 04 Jun 2003, 23:47

Amen, Lore. I agree with you 100%.

And not only is it nearly impossible to navigate bare-eyed once you're substantially nearsighted, it's pretty damn hard to read as well. I'm -6.25 with moderate astigmatism in both eyes and would have come within about five and a half inches and close one eye to read anything. Someone with a -10 would obviously have to get even closer. You can't tell that someone would find wearing glasses more embarrassing than that. I'd also have a headache for the rest of the day.

I can understand such a thing as blur interpretation, but it would have to be in surroundings that are pretty familiar.


Lore 04 Jun 2003, 21:47

I tend to agree there's some difference in how people adjust to blurriness, but I really think most of that is moot by the time you reach -5 or so, and any individual variations would seem to me to be neglible by the time you get up to -8 or -10 or more.

I guess it depends on what we define by "getting around." If you mean being able to get from point A to point B without seriously injuring yourself or someone else, well, then I could do that without glasses. But, if I want any sort of actual appreciation for what is going on around me, and want to enjoy my surroundings, then I put my glasses on.

I guess I just don't understand either the how of it or the why of it. It is completely incredible to me, as I said, that anyone with a -10 could get around a school building without glasses. There are simply too many people who wouldn't be recognized, too many doors that are only labeled by small numbers, too many classrooms that are laid out in ways different enough to make bumping into desks a certainty. Maybe you could make it from your bed to the toilet without correction, or from your bed to the kitchen for a glass of water in the middle of the night. But I just cannot understand how anyone with a -8 or -9 or -10 could get around in surroundings that were anything less than absolutely familiar, since I'm -5 and couldn't do that, and I just cannot believe that individual variations in vision could make that huge of a difference.

But I also don't understand the why of it. Okay, I get why someone with a -2 or a -3 or perhaps even a -4 would want to go without glasses whenever possible. And, at lower prescriptions, for some people, I suppose it is possible. But, why would you want to walk around in a complete blur when you could just put your glasses on and see things clearly? Because, at least for me, there is nothing appealing or erotic or enjoyable or even comfortable about going without my glasses. It's not like they bother me and so I take them off for relief; 95% of the time during the day I forget I'm even wearing them. I mean, there are rare times when I'm extremely bored when I'll take them off or look over them to see what I can see without them. But, there's nothing appealing about it at all.

I think I'm getting overly upset about this, but I just do not get it, and honestly cannot believe that anyone with a prescription above -5 (or at least -6 or -7) could get around without correction in any kind of satisfying or even half-way normal way. And, I don't see why they would want to walk around in a blur, or what the appeal is. I mean, I think that if you asked people who do not have vision that can be corrected to clarity if they would want to be corrected to 20/20 or so if it were possible, I'm assuming most of them would say yes. So, it seems totally ridiculous to me that anyone who *can* be corrected to 20/20 or thereabouts would choose to walk around in a blur, whether out of vanity (which is really dumb, if you ask me, because groping your way across a room is rather unattractive, too) or out of some sense of excitement or adventure or whatever.

Maybe I just think that the world is far too beautiful of a place for anyone to not look at it as clearly as they can. It seems like a waste.


s[ecs4ever 04 Jun 2003, 21:26

I knew a girl in University that was at least a -9, and she went around much of the time with her glasses perched on the top of her head. So, while I agree that it isn't the smartest thing in the world to do, I believe that some people have a better sense of blurr interpertation than others, as I remember my best friends wife, a -2d myope who always compkained about how bad her eyes were. And, my wife was -6D before surgery, and she often wandered around the house without glasses


PennNP02 04 Jun 2003, 17:22

I agree with Lore--I don't see how somebody with -10 could function without correction, whether it would be contacts or glasses. My question would be this--how come her family and/or her eye doctor didn't crack down on her about wearing glasses/contacts way before her vision got so bad?!?! I mean, if her doctor knew that her myopia was progressing, why didn't that doctor insist that she wear some kind of correction? Maybe it was a congenital condition that caused her vision to be so bad but still, I just can't imagine going without glasses or contacts. Like Lore, I could not function without correction and I'm only -3.25 R -4 L.


Nick 04 Jun 2003, 13:48

The last post was me.


 04 Jun 2003, 13:48

Clare, I know what you mean. If you dont like wearing glasses, it is very hard to get used to having to wear them full/most of the time. However, judging from my experience, its pretty much a one week wonder: once most people you know have seen you in glasses the comments stop and you get so used to wearing them you forget youve got them on. Actually, I got fewer comments than I thought I would I guess most people arent that observant. Now, most people I know have seen me in them its no longer and issue.

I was pretty aware of them the first day I wore them to work. Actually, I nearly slipped them in my pocket as I went in. However, the thought of the eyestrain and the headaches tempted me to keep them on and I knew that once Id arrived Id got over the worst. Shortly after I arrived I was running an activity session for youngsters and the fact I could see their faces so clearly made me realise Id made the right decision and I stopped worrying about peoples reactions.

The old glasses were a gunmetal grey and more oval than these ones are. Im not sure whether I actually prefer wearing these ones, its just that I cant do without them anymore.

So in answer to Milly's post, I was -2.00 in one eye and -2.25 in the other when I went full time.


milly 04 Jun 2003, 13:24

i was just wondering at what prescription do you have to start wearing glasses all the time? or in your opinion...


Lore 04 Jun 2003, 10:16

It is incredible to me that anyone with a -10 could not wear any correction. I just don't see how that's possible. I have a -5, and I could not get along for a day without my glasses. I can barely get around my house, which I know; there's no way I could get around unfamiliar surroundings.

And, in school? No way. I can't recognize people without my glasses on unless they are very close to me; with a -10, I imagine you couldn't recognize anyone. You'd bump into desks and miss doorways and forget getting around the cafeteria. I mean, I had trouble surviving in school when I was a -2 and wouldn't wear my glasses! It was very stressful and very uncomfortable, because I couldn't see the board or the ball very well in gym.

I keep hearing stories here about people being a -7 or -8 or -10 and going without correction out of vanity, but that just doesn't seem right to me. I can understand being -2 or -3 and squinting and being uncomfortable out of vanity, but by -8 or -10 you'd be bumping into things and groping around like a blind person, which, IMHO, is far more embarassing and "unattractive" than wearing glasses. I would tend to think, that is, that anyone vain enough to not wear correction they really, really need is probably also vain enough to think appearing blind is also extremely unattractive.


Julian 04 Jun 2003, 10:13

milly: Have another test, get glasses, wear them. Or if you're determined not to, you could try contact lenses. Unless you can improve your eyesight with vision training ( see that thread) you will need correction to see properly and you may as well face the facts.

Love and kisses, Jules.


AJ 04 Jun 2003, 10:11

Well milly, if you don't want to wear glasses, you will just have to get along not seeing very well! When I was in high school, I knew a girl that was extremely nearsighted, much worse than you (about -10 for each eye), and she too didn't want to wear glasses, so she just went without them 90% of the time. She was really blind without her glasses and missed out seeing many things. She usually wouldn't even put them on when she was in class. She certainly couldn't see the board or the teacher. It was a miracle that she wasn't hit by a car crossing the street.


milly 04 Jun 2003, 09:56

hi i used to have a prescription for -o.25 L and -0.75 R but i didn't want glasses so i left and now a year and a bit on i'm having trouble seeing the board and far away stuff. When i close my left eye everything is really blury. I still don't want glasses what should i do?


John 03 Jun 2003, 13:13

When I first got glasses I normally only wore them for reading and close work, but I would keep them on if I had a headache. I guess the difference is that I'm long sighted, so I imagine that this is more common.


Puffin 02 Jun 2003, 13:49

I remember when I was in High School and my elder brother's Girlfriend was around too. She wore glasses, not very strong about minus 2 or so, those big clear plastic 80-s style frames that I admire.

Anyway one day I was talking to her and she had them on, and one of her mates came by and remarked 'Oh, are you wearing them all the time now?' (Or words to that effect, I can't remember everything from 20+years ago!)

Her reply was something like

'Oh, I only wear them full time when I have a headache!'

Interesting, no?


Clare 02 Jun 2003, 12:53

Well done Nick for being so brave! That's the bit that I hate - when you see someone who's not seen you in glasses before, what to say? Looks like you've fallen for good vision - I guess when you get to > -2 you start to appreciate the difference it makes, isn't taking them off a revelation? I'm lucky I can wear contacts otherwise I think I'd still mainly be bumbling about out there, not a huge problem I suppose but - as you've discovered - its really nice to see everything clearly. I've never been able to come to terms with myself as a regular glasses wearer so I'm always interested how new fulltime wearers like you overcome the kind of issues that, even after a year or more with a -2.25 prescription, I can't overcome. How do you, or anyone else reading this, do it??


Clare 02 Jun 2003, 12:47


Toby 02 Jun 2003, 06:35

I went for a few years without even picking up a book, now I'm reading one after the other, getting through them at the rate of one every 2 weeks, I must admit that the more I read, 1) the more I want to read and 2) the faster I am reading.

You seem a nice guy

Tobes

x


Julian 02 Jun 2003, 04:37

Toby: I've just looked out my last prescription, just about a year old. I didn't have it made up as I was advised I was OK with the specs I've been wearing since 2000:

Right +1.50-0.75x15; Left +0.75-0.75x5; Add +1.75.

I'm 63 and have had bifocals since I was 40; but I was still reading in the bath without glasses till I was about 47. Not after that though, and no chance now - even if I hadn't got into showers instead of tubs!

Love and kisses, Jules.


Toby 02 Jun 2003, 01:58

Julian, what do you mean by *low* hyperope, what is your prescription like? How old are you?

Tobes


Julian 02 Jun 2003, 01:22

For glsss read glasses ::)


Julian 02 Jun 2003, 01:21

Toby: I'm a *low* hyperope, but for a long time even after I was wearing bifocals full time I could still read in the bath bare eyed. Just thought you'd like to know that!

Nick: glad you're settled with good vision and full time wear. You never told us: what were your old glsss like, the ones you didn't like and didn't want to wear? What part f the country are you in?

Love and kisses, Jules.


Toby 01 Jun 2003, 23:55

Brian: I suppose that is one of the problems of having a high -rx, they do shrink things sometimes, it just sounds a shame that more and more young people seem to be needing bifocals but then if it helps with reading then it can only be a good thing. My rx isn't as strong as yours but one thing I prefer about being nearsighted rather than far sighted is that is is still possible to read in the bath without specs... I too am a book worm.

Where are you from?

If you want to, feel free to email on c064636@ukonline.net

take care mate


Larissa 01 Jun 2003, 23:54

Oh...forgot to say...I did not see Steve Erwin yet, or crocs for that matter.


Larissa 01 Jun 2003, 23:52

Hi everyone from the Land Down Under! I have made it! I made the move from USA to Queensland Australia. I've been here a few days now getting over the jet-lag and getting used to time changes and the weather. So far I love it and think I made the right choice. The hardest part will be missing my family and friends and making new ones (friends that is).

But to you guys, I guess it won't be that much different except that I will post here when most of you guys are asleep and visa-versa. I'm sure it will work out.

I have a few more days to relax then I will be job hunting.

I haven't had the time to go out much yet. The little I did was so overwhelming I don't remember where I was and what I've seen. I will let you lot know if I observe any differences in eye wear fashion and all that stuff that most of you are interested in. So I will act like a 'spy' here and report to you lot.


Brian 16 01 Jun 2003, 15:02

Toby-Already I have been trying on those drug store reading glasses over my present glasses and I can see small print far better.I am almost -10.0d with my glasses and the drug store ones are +1.5.Plus my doctor last time said I will be a candidate for bi-focals at the next exam.The specs I now have really make things diminish and I am a book-worm.


Nick 01 Jun 2003, 12:39

Hi, in answer to all your questions about how Ive been getting on with my new glasses.

I have quite a few comments about them, at first a few people assumed that I was wearing them because I was having contacts trouble. Most people told me I looked really good in them, which makes me feel a bit better about wearing them, but I guess the people that think they make you look like a dork keep their thoughts to themselves. They certainly really help me, especially at work where I can see peoples faces clearly now.

Over the past week I have gradually drifted into virtually full time wear; Im not sure that it was a conscious decision, it just seemed to happen. I think there are a combination of reasons: as I need to wear them for driving, shopping and at work it doesnt leave too much that I can do without them; also by wearing them most of the day I really noticed the difference when I wasnt wearing them (I went out for a drink with some mates after work one day in the week and I couldnt see that well); and Ive become quite aware that when Ive not been wearing them Im squinting a bit (not a good look, I feel).

I guess it was Friday night that I sub-consciously accepted that I couldnt do without them out of the house. Id come home from work (so Id been wearing my glasses all day) and was getting ready to go out; I put on my glasses without even thinking about it as I was getting dressed after taking a shower. I really wasnt aware that I was wearing them until later in the evening when one of my mates asked if I was wearing my glasses all the time now. Couldnt imagine wearing them out a week ago, so I guess that I have accepted I need them most of the time.


Toby 31 May 2003, 13:53

Brian: If you are only 16, what makes you think that you will need bifocals on your next visit to the opticians?


Toby 31 May 2003, 13:53

I am 22 and I had an eye check recently and for the 1st time ever my optician said she wanted to check my 'reading' but said that it was ok for the time being.... I am a full time computer user (I used a computer all day in work) and I also do a lot of reading at home and I do sometimes get headaches after reading for a long time... is this anything to be worried about?


Pete 31 May 2003, 06:58

My wife has been wearing glasses full time for about 3 yrs with her last prescription of left +.50 - .25 155 ADD .75 Right+.75 -.50 15 ADD .75. As we have a trial lens set we often test each other every 3 months or so. About three weeks ago I tested her and was amazed that she had gone from a plus to a minus Left -.75 -.25 155 add +1.50 right -.50 -.25 15 add +1.50 We left it a week then retested and got exzactly the same result. She is 44 and has good accomadation but prefers the add to reduce strain, she wears multi focals full time. She said with the trial lens in everything is crisper but her close vision is not good. Has anyone any suggestions as to why this change may have occurred.


Christy 30 May 2003, 06:55

3Ms - There's no harm in wearing low rx specs if they've been prescribed for you. If I had a low rx like that for my first prescription - I'd still have worn them full-time. Any slight feeling of dizziness with a new pair of specs (and specially a first-time pair) will pass very quickly. Your eyes (or more properly - your brain) just needs a moment to adjust to seeing things the way they are supposed to look!


Alan 30 May 2003, 04:51

3Ms -- feeling a little bit dizzy wouldn't be too unusual, but I'd expect it to pass very quickly, particularly with a prescription like that (low minus). If the sensation persists, it's probably "all in your mind", as they say...not so much a matter of your eyes being sent different signals. (But then, if the glasses weren't made well, there could be some distortion that's causing it.)


3Ms 30 May 2003, 01:12

Finally I've got my first prescription glasses with -0.5 for the left eye and -0.25 for the right one...I know it's very mild but I'm really happy to wear them and to experience seeing through Rx lenses, it's really a different world. One question I have though, how about this feeling of dizziness I have, is that normal when someone wears prescritpion glasses for the first time?


Marcel 29 May 2003, 00:19

I have - 1,75 in both eyes and I have difficulties now to cope without them.

As I told my parents are horrified because I'm the first glasses wearer in our family. My brothers and sisters are always joking. They can't understand it but I have no problems with my friends.


Clare 28 May 2003, 13:58

Jo - Nick's new prescription is the same as mine. I remember he said in his first post that wasn't too keen to wear them so he might, like me, resist!! He may just become a frequent rather than a full time wearer. What are the bets?? How's it going then Nick??


Jo 28 May 2003, 13:44

Hey Nick, Let us know how you are getting on with your new glasses. Are you enjoying wearing them? What has been other people's reaction to your new look? How often are you wearing them now? I bet if you are not full time yet you will be soon.


Anon 27 May 2003, 09:13

Jeff the dilating guy. What exactly is exactlier???


Jeff 27 May 2003, 06:38

Hi ant!

Your doc will give you some kind of dilating eyedrops which will paralyze your eye focus and also dilates your pupil. This can be very exciting,so dont worry about.

With those drops in your eyes your doc can measure your myopic eyes more exactlier, please let us know what happens at your next trip to your doc!

Bye


ant 26 May 2003, 04:18

Help- i went for an eye test last week with the aim of getting a stronger rx. What happened was that the doc said there was a substantial increase and she wasn't too happy about that. She now wants me to go back to have drops in and another test. What does this mean ? - any advice as to what I should do - I am a bit worried and need some help please


Nick 26 May 2003, 02:18

Hi Richi and Others,

Firstly, sorry for the annoying 2s, I will make an effort to type to properly this time!

I picked up my new glasses after work on Saturday. They do make a real difference, the vision is so much sharper with them, even than it was when I was wearing my old glasses. Yes, I am wearing them more often than I wore my old glasses, but Im not wearing them all the time at the minute. Yesterday, I wore them out and about for most of the day, but I didnt wear them out on Saturday night when I went to a party. Im going to wear them to work for the first time this afternoon I guess then Ill really notice how much of a difference they make.


Richi 26 May 2003, 01:36

Hi Nick,

what about your new glasses?

do you wear them more often now?

we are curious to hear more.


"ANON" 22 May 2003, 16:05

KRIS-T

I'm not totally dependant on my glasses. I don't need to wear them all the time I just choose to. But I do get headaches if I don't wear them for reading. As they don't affect my distance vision I can wear them all the time.

Why don't you like wearing your glasses for driving?


kris t 22 May 2003, 07:15

anon, hi, just out of curiosity how dependant are you upon your glasses and how is your vision without them? i don't like driving in mine so i tend to just wear them around the house from time to time and when i am doing work.


Doug 21 May 2003, 14:26

My prescription is R: -1.50 -0.75 177 L: -1.50 -1.00 175 and I wear my glasses all the time


"ANON" 21 May 2003, 14:24

KRIS T

My prescription is similar to yours but with no astigmatism (+1.00 in both eyes). I've only had them a few months but I decided to wear them full time not long after I got them as I kept forgetting to take them with me. So I thought if I wore them all the time then I wouldn't forget them. My distance sight is perfect without glasses and is no different with glasses. I know some people can't see distances clearly or take a few weeks to see distances clearly when they get + glasses but I could see distances with my glasses on just fine right from the start.

If your close and middle distance vision is better and your distance vision is the same with your glasses then maybe you could try full time wear for a while to see how you get on.


Julian 21 May 2003, 14:13

Thanks Curt, I've been trying to stop myself saying that all week!

Nick: flattered u took my advice, glad u found sxy spx, bet its not long b4u start wearing thm fulltime ::)

Love and kisses, Jules.


Amanuensis Gump 21 May 2003, 13:57

4 your in4mation, tis far more difficult 2 type "2" because it requires reaching above the normal keyboard. Do indulge us, will you?


Curt 21 May 2003, 11:04

Nick: Is it that much harder to type "to" instead of "2"???


Nick 21 May 2003, 10:46

Thanks 4 all the advice and comments. I went back 2 work on Sunday; I havent worn my glasses 2 work yet. Although Ive coped OK, I think things might b better if I wore my glasses at work, there are times when its a bit of a strain 2 see things and by the end of the shift Im starting to get a headache. Ive followed Julians advice and went for an eyetest Monday b4 I went to work. I explained that over the past week Ive been finding it much harder 2 see without my glasses and that Ive been getting headaches. When the test was over, the optician said that my eyes had changed slightly (-2.00 right, -2.25 left). He said that given what Id told him Id probably want 2 wear glasses most of the time now. I took my flatmate with me 2 help me choose the new frames. Went for a pair of semi-rimless rectangular frames in bronze and lenses with an anti-reflection coat. I havent decided how often Im going to wear them yet, I guess Ill see how much difference they make, but I think its likely Ill b wearing them more often than I wear my current pair. Hopefully they will b ready 2morrow.


Matt 19 May 2003, 11:38

I totally agree with Jo's post. When I first went full-time I really hated it, but now I think I look much better wearing glasses than I did before when I was always squinting. Now I really don't like seeing the photos of me taken in the last year or so before I went full time, because in most of them I'm really screwing my eyes up.

(If you are not convinced that people look better with glasses than squinting, look at the pics of Freddie Prinze on Rex Features. He's wearing glasses in all of his recent public appearances and looks really good; you have to go back to the Nick kid's awards in April 2002 to see him bare-eyed and he's really squinting there).


Bob W 18 May 2003, 15:05

Clare:

PS - You might just be getting ready for a new phase, if you can take your BF's compliments and what you know from here, to be able to turn it around a bit. The glasses image is probably a lot less about intelligent, serious, or formal, than simply if one is willing to put them on or not, besides the erotic appeal of course. Who knows, even a Brit might become able to flaunt those beautiful nearsighted eyes like a certain Dane we all know so well!

Best Regards, Bob W


Bob W 18 May 2003, 14:53

Clare:

Sorry about my last post. I was thinking of you being bare eyed a good deal of the time, and I certainly disregarded your sensitivity to how you appear in glasses or not.

It certainly sounds like there has been a change in how you view yourself and your eyesight. Your post under "sightings" sounded critical of yourself somehow, at least to me. If her specs were a little less Rx, it would make a big difference from what I gather in the -2 range. Also, if she didn't wear lenses much and was a lot younger, she could have more accomodation, maybe?

I hope you could find support here for, what must be a big change, that's happened this last year for you. You're still dealing with appearing in glasses to boot! To me, you're still Clare, brazen, bare eyed, comparing what you could or couldn't see with Christy, snickering at pulling off announcing you wear cl's at work without letting on your Rx one bit,

more than willing to stand up and get closer to the specials menu, etc.

Best Regards, Bob W


Jo 18 May 2003, 13:51

Nick, as you are so image conscious, let me assure you that you will look miles better wearing a pair of well-chosen glasses than you will squinting and screwing up your eyes the whole time!


Clare 18 May 2003, 11:42

Hey Nick

I hear some of myself in what you say! Eighteen months ago I was, like you, with a prescription that many here would consider low, then I got an increase to -2.25 and I found that a problem. Isn't it weird that we have an issue with needing glasses? I guess its a bit of a surprise to you, thinking that you only had a low prescription, to find you really need them. I have a friend with -1.25 who's worn them all the time, outside of the house, for several years. I found that strange because at that rx I didn't think I needed to, but i hear that we all have different tolerance levels and his must have been lower than mine. Shame about your tolerance of contacts. At -2.25 they've been my salvation, but I'm still enchanted by glasses although I don't want to be a fulltime wearer, contacts are a bit of a cop out on that front! For me the biggest issue was how other people would react. I'm still vain when it comes to it and if I'm wearing my glasses I'll still quickly take them off (as long as its not dangerous) rather than let some people who don't know me as a glasses wearer see me and comment about it. Let us know how you get on.


Clare 18 May 2003, 11:35


Nick 18 May 2003, 02:14

That last post was me - forgot 2 put my name on.


 18 May 2003, 02:14

Wow. Loads of advice and loads of questions too. I ended up wearing my glasses 4 most of the day yesterday. Went out to watch the football in a pub (so I had to wear them for that), then some mates came round for a pizza and we watched a couple of dvds. Today Im bared eyed so far. But, Im I think I probably really need 2 wear glasses most of the time now. I guess that wearing the sunglasses has made me more aware of what I was missing b4; it was certainly a strain the other afternoon when I went shopping without them and I was getting a headache.

Jules is quite the detective! Yes, Im from the UK; no Im not a student; Im 23 and I work in a leisure centre. Im well aware of Joes point that if I cant see 2 buy a pint of milk without wearing glasses anymore its pretty unlikely that Ill cope at work without them. If I need to wear them at work Im gonna wear them all the time there I think it looks really bad when people put their glasses on for a few minutes and then take them off again. Always reminds me of elderly people with their reading glasses. Im back 2 work this afternoon so it will be interesting 2 c if I can get by without them.

I cant give a definite reason why I dont like wearing glasses; part of it is an image thing, I guess Im pretty vain and I like the way I look without them, I dont c myself as a glasses wearer; but part of it might be down 2 the fact I am not keen on the pair Ive got. When I got them I was told Id only needed them for driving and telly, so I got a fairly cheap pair (with free sunglasses) and didnt spend that long choosing them. I dont mind wearing the sunglasses as with a relatively low prescription, they just look like normal shades. My eyes cant tolerate contacts, I tried them shortly after I got glasses, so if I have 2 go full time it will have 2 b glasses.

I guess Jules advice is sensible. Ill probably go 4 an eyetest next week to see if my eyes have actually got worse recently and to get some advice on when I should be wearing my glasses. If Im going to have to wear them most/all of the time, Ill get a new pair of glasses. Hopefully then Ill feel a lot better about wearing them.


Marcel 17 May 2003, 16:00

I have -1,75 and I'm a fulltime wearer now. I had the same problems like Nick but i can' t imagine to cope without my glasses now. It's such a difference.


kris t  17 May 2003, 15:35

hi there!

julian: i really like the way i look in them - my friend said that it is as though i've been wearing them for years. my boyfriend loves them too. i am happy with them although i am finding the fact that my eyes are no longer perfect slightly odd. everything close up is so clear and sharp, although i can see without them. in terms of distance there is very little difference between things with glasses on or off. things in the middle distance however are much sharper. if i look across the room with them on i can see everything really clearly. without them on, although i can see every detail, things have a slightly hazy edge. i'm still not too sure of their full potential as i have not really had much chance to wear them this week. matt, that also answers your question too. i've spent most of my week driving and i don't find them of any use for that. i wore them on thursday at a conference so that would have been the first time i've been out in public with them on. i'll be going into uni on monday so i'll get to see peoples' reactions then - i'm actually quite nervous!


Joe 17 May 2003, 13:41

Nick, it seems to me that you are already beginning to subconsciously accept that you need to wear your glasses more often, given the fact that you had to put them on to go shopping and you wore them out today to get the milk. What will happen when you go back to work? If you cant see to go shopping without glasses anymore, will you be able to cope at work without them? I think youll find it difficult to persuade your eyes to cope without glasses now theyve started to get used to the clear vision. I dont think it will be too long before you go for full time correction if you have to wear glasses for most situations, youll soon drift into full time wear even if you dont make conscious decision. At first, you might do without your glasses for socialising, but if you wear them for virtually everything else, I think youll soon leave them on. Have you thought about contacts?


Andrew 17 May 2003, 13:41

Interesting thoughts, Julian, especially in the second paragraph. Is it true that hence forward you will be posting as "Sherlock"?


Matt 17 May 2003, 10:21

Nick, if you need to wear your glasses to see clearly, then do it. I didn't go full-time until my eyes were really bad and I regret that now. You don't say why you don't like wearing glasses, but as Julian says have you any idea what you look like when you squint at things a few feet away? When I had to go full time and I didn't really like the way I looked wearing glasses one of my friends actually pointed out that I looked lot better wearing them than I did squinting and that putting them on and taking them off the whole time made me look silly. Something to think about, perhaps.

Kris T, how are you getting on with your new glasses? How often have you been wearing them?


Julian 17 May 2003, 08:47

Ah, there's a thought.


specs4ever 17 May 2003, 08:32

Nick, you are one of the ones that might get some beefit from the vision training that Fran has been talking about on one of the other threads. I suggest that you take a look


Tammy 17 May 2003, 07:37

Alan, Yes, you have the right Tammy. I am about -12.00. I thought it was very interesting news myself, especially since my sister's in her 30's and never worn correction before in her life. Like i said, i am told that she has always been 20/40 in that one eye. I guess now the only thing to do is wait and see how she likes her glasses when she actually gets them.


Tammy 17 May 2003, 07:31

Ooops...sorry about the blank post.


Tammy 17 May 2003, 07:30


Julian 17 May 2003, 07:09

Hi Nick. Interesting story; interesting questions.

First answer: wearing your sunglasses has NOT made your eyes worse. On the other hand it's quite possible that your eyes have got a bit worse and you're more aware of this because you've been wearing them; it's normal for myopia to increase and if your prescription is 18 months old you may be ready for an increase soon, if not just yet. That apart, the problem is that you and your eyes have different ideas about glasses: you don't like them; your eyes do. Your eyes like what they regard as normal - clear vision without straining, and they are only going to get that with glasses or some other form of correction. After the experience of the holiday in prescription shades, they are not too keen on going back to squinting and straining to see things beyond their scope. If you force them as you suggest, they won't like it and they'll let you know it (headaches maybe; general discomfort for sure) but you may beat them into submission. You can always try. If you do wear your glasses more your eyes will like it and so will you in some ways - the fact that you *instinctively* put them on to go for the milk says quite a lot - and you may well find it harder to go without. In your place (which I'm not) I'd probably be going for full time wear and so would lots of other people.

Some questions for you now. How old are you? (your story suggests the 18-25 age range.) What kind of job do you do? (You don't mention problems with blackboards and OHPs so I'm guessing you aren't a student.) Are you in the UK? (You've been on holiday rather than vacation) Finally, what have you got against wearing your glasses full time? Have you any idea what you look like when you squint to see anything more than a few feet away?

Love and kisses, Jules.


Nick 17 May 2003, 01:22

Hi, stumbled on this site looking for some guidance. Dont know if Im posting in the right thread.

I first got glasses about 18 months ago because Im slightly myopic (around -1.50, I think). So far, Ive just really worn glasses for driving, television and movies.

Ive just got back from holiday. As the only sunglasses Ive got are my prescription ones, I wore them quite a lot while I was away. Ive been back a couple of days now, and Ive noticed that Im finding it much harder to cope without my glasses now when Im out and about. I went out shopping yesterday found it difficult to see things. I ended up going back to the car to get my glasses which I put on never felt a need to wear them shopping b4. When I got home, I did take them off again and didnt wear them out last nite. We needed some milk 2day and much to my (and my flatmates) surprise, I kind of instinctively put on my glasses b4 going out. Still wearing them now.

A couple of questions has wearing my sunglasses made my eyes worse? If I make an effort to go without them for a couple of days, will things go back to normal i.e. being able to function without them? (I really dont like wearing glasses much). If I wear them more (i.e. start to wear them for shopping, walking around, etc) will that mean it is even harder to do without them? (Will I find it hard to do without them on a nite out, for example?) Should I wear my glasses full time now? (I really dont want to). Do other people with this prescription wear their glasses full time? Help!!!!


Alan 16 May 2003, 22:52

Tammy - Interesting news about your sister... you're around -12, right? If I have the right Tammy, it's amazing that she has such a little prescription when yours is so strong.


Tammy 16 May 2003, 21:12

I just found out that my sister is going to be getting glasses soon. She said that she's 20/20 in one eye and 20/50 in the other. She's never worn glasses or contacts ever before, but i don't see how she excaped them since i'm told she's been 20/40 for a long time. She says she's excited about getting glasses!


Larissa 15 May 2003, 23:39

Hi everyone...I'm leaving USA and moving to Australia NEXT WEEK! I'm so excited and anxious. Don't know if I'll be able to post between now and then (I will try) but rest assured, when I get my computer hooked up there, I'll log on here (ES) first (after the mandatory family emails of course).


Julian 15 May 2003, 22:33

kris: well done, and welcome to the club. Two questions. Are you happy with the way you look with your specs on? And are you finding you can see distant objects OK/better with them on?

Love and kisses, Jules.


Tommy 12 May 2003, 11:40

Alex

My Rx hovers about minus 6. Last Dr. visit he increased it by .25 and since I needed new frames got the Rx filled also. I was surprised at how much clearer things were with that small an increase. Yes, I think you will notice a big difference. Being 40 were you checked for close vision to see if you need bifocals? I am several years older than you but started bifocals about your age. You may find your stronger minus, without bifocal, could make reading a little more difficult. Of course, with a minus 2.50 you can readily take your glasses off for reading, may have to hold the book or paper a little closer. Let us know how much better you see with the new glasses and how they are for reading.


kris t 12 May 2003, 09:19

oh my god! i have now joined the club!

basically i went to the mall and had a look in the various opticians to see what frames they had and what the prices were like. if i was going to go ahead with it i didn't want to spend too much money on them. Anyway i told my story to one of the opticians. i basically said that i have a very weak prescription and the doc. said i was a borderline case for specs and he didn't think they would help. i showed her my prescription and she said that even at that low strength she thought it would be wise to give them ago because it might stop my headaches (obviously she would have said that anyway to just make a sale, but i was convinced). I picked out two cute little pairs, one are a maroony colour, the others are blue/black (it was two complete pairs for the price of one, and i got 25% student discount - bargain). an hour later they were ready. i went back to pick them up and i tried them on and had them adjusted etc - oh my god - the writing was so black and sharp! i just thought the print quality was poor before. i thought computer screens were meant to be slightly fuzzy - how wrong was i. i had fun walking about the mall trying them on at every opportunity. i would post a picture but i forgot to renew my web hosting thing - i'll see what i can do.

many thanks to everyone to all your kind words and advice.

kris


Russell 12 May 2003, 07:54

Kris...it is not likely that an optician is going to pass up a sale just because your optometrist wrote "no glasses prescribed" on the prescription. If you have a valid prescription, the dispenser will more than likely fill it. It seems strange to me that a doctor would actually write a prescription, then write "no glasses prescribed" on it. Weird! It seems to me that he would have just told you that you didn't need glasses and left it at that. If you want glasses, get it filled!


Alan 12 May 2003, 06:26

Julian and Kris T - I don't really think that much astigmatism (0.25/0.5) is enough to make much difference for most people, but it might make a difference for some. But Julian may be right - it might be worth a try. Kris, I guess you also might want to find a different eye doctor, just because it seems this person wasn't very helpful; whether you need glasses or not, it seems like you should be able to get some good advice about the eyestrain.


Julian 11 May 2003, 23:27

That is a thought, but off-the-shelf readers won't do anything for the astigmatism; I know it's a small degree, but it's a very fruitful source of eyestrain, along with slight differences between the two eyes. What astounds me, Kris, is that with that Rx your optometrist reckons you don't need glasses. I think if you can get your prescription made up they'll make studying a lot easier and you may even want to wear them quite a lot of the time (TV, cinema, even driving). I'm talking from my own experience of getting a simlar Rx when I was 18.

Love and kisses, Jules.


Alan 11 May 2003, 18:57

Kris T - you might actually find that a stronger pair of reading glasses would help you more with your close up work and the blurriness you get afterward; you won't be able to see in the distance with them, but while you're studying you don't need to. You can pick up a pair of these at a drug store or deparment store, thought probably not in a style you like a lot.

As for what Andrew says about not knowing whether a pair of glasses will suit you or not, I agree and disagree...it's true that you have no *guarantee* that glasses ordered online will suit you. But after doing a bunch of glasses shopping, I've figured out what shapes look better on my face than others, and what size the lenses should be, so when I look at a pair online I am able to form a pretty good judgment about whether they'll look good on me. I've gotten more compliments on the pair I ordered from www.39dollarglasses.com (for, you guessed it, 39 dollars) than I ever got on the glasses I got at a fancy shop for (I'm not kidding) more than 10 times as much. OK, the expensive ones were made a little better, and the compliments have more to do with getting a bolder style that gets more attention (positive or negative), but the online-ordered ones have worked out great. Not sure that would happen every time, but for $40, it's not the end of the world if I mis-fire once in a while.


Alex 11 May 2003, 14:42

I'm 40 but my myopia is still increasing. Admittedly I don't have a strong prescription but has anyone else experienced the same at this sort of age? I've had a prescription of -2 for the two years since my last checkup but i got another increase this time to -2.50 and the ey dr said she thought i'd really find the .50 makes a big difference. I;'d be glad to hear any comments from anyone here. Thanks.


kris t 11 May 2003, 09:28

i have a plan! tomorrow morning i'm going to the shopping centre to have a look at the frames available from one of those cheap one hour glasses places - whether i'll have the courage to actually do anything when i'm there is another matter :)


specs4ever 11 May 2003, 07:34

Hey kris t - even though it says no prescription required, you should be able to use the prescription to aquire a pair of glasses from any reputable optician. If he hadn't given you any prescription paper at all, then it would be a problem. And, from your prescription, I think that a pair of glasses in your proper prescription would give you a chance to evaluate their benefit. Of course, you can also use your prescription to send in an online order as well.


kris t 11 May 2003, 01:13

Andrew - i was actually wondering about that. i've checked out a number of online retailers and i really haven't seen anything i like. i also have no idea about frame size and pupillary distance, which they ask for. i already know what style glasses suite me.

i think what i'll do is order some cheap glasses and even if they don't suit me i'll be able to tell if they are of any use.

check out www.visionexpress.com. you can upload a photo of yourself and virtually try on all the frames - hours of fun :-)

many thanks to Smudgeur for your help.


Andrew 10 May 2003, 14:33

You might be able to get glasses in the prescription of your choice this way, but there is no guarantee that the glasses you select would suit you at all, correct prescription or not!


Smudgeur 10 May 2003, 08:21

Hi Kris

If you want to have a try, why not go to one of the online vendors who don't even ask to see a prescription - you enter it yourself.

http://www.eyeglassfactoryoutlet.com/

or

www.ruok4specs.co.uk

It's got to be worth a go I would have thought.

Smudgeur


Smudgeur 10 May 2003, 08:21

Hi Kris

If you want to have a try, why not go to one of the online vendors who don't even ask to see a prescription - you enter it yourself.

http://www.eyeglassfactoryoutlet.com/

or

ruok4specs.co.uk

It's got to be worth a go I would have thought.

Smudgeur


kris t 10 May 2003, 05:18

+50 lenses would make your eyes look absolutely enormous. they'd be over 5cm thick - now that is something i'd like to see.

i hope i'm not offending anyone who actually does have +50 lenses :)

kris t


Puffin 10 May 2003, 03:16

I suppose if one had a plus 50 RX you'd be walking around in glasses that looked like a couple of light bulbs.


kris t 10 May 2003, 01:40

hi Smudgeur,

I am 22 and a full time student. I spend most of my time with my head in a book or on the computer. i find that things definitely start to get fuzzy after a while and when i look up after close work everything in the distance is rather hazy.

even though it says cleary on my prescription 'no glasses prescribed' would i still be able to go and get them made up?


Smudgeur 10 May 2003, 01:15

My wife's prescription is similar to yours:

L +0.75 -0.25 080

R +0.50 -0.50 078

She wears hers full time!

She is 35 so her accommodation may not be what it once was. How old are you? With a prescription like that I'm surprised you weren't at least prescribed for reading. If you have the figures written down there's nothing to stop you getting it made up and see how you get on with them


kris t 09 May 2003, 14:57

for the first prescription i meant R 0, L +0.50

+50 would be a huge visual problem!


kris t 09 May 2003, 14:55

hi there!

well, i finally went to the opticians. the result according to the eye doc': i still don't need glasses!

please tell me at what prescription do you generally get prescribed glasses.

basically my previous prescription about a year ago was R 0, L +50. my new prescription is R +1.00 -0.50 10, L +0.75 -0.25 180 (or something in that region - i've left the actual prescription at my friends so i'll keep you updated if it is different to what i have given here) - i was sure this would be the time i'd be given glasses. instead the eye guy said he couldn't figure out why my eyes were bothering me so much.

comments and advice please. is this prescription too low to need correction or should i get a second opinion?

anyway, they eye exam itself was really fun - i think his could become my new hobby. the only problem was that i was given drops to relax my muscles and i still can't focus on anything close up (please excuse typos). its kinda exciting in a way because i imagine this is what it feels like to really need glasses.

sorry if this makes little sense - i've just come back from the pub

many thanks to julian for his relpy to my previous comment.

cheers, kris


Johnnyb555 04 May 2003, 19:07

Hello all,

I posted this to Sightings, but think it also belongs here. Saw an extremely myopic woman at the Camarillo Outlets this afternoon, she was in her 30's, slender, about 5'8", brunette with shoulder length curly hair. Prescription around -15 or higher, highly polished lenses, made her eyes look very small. Don't think lenses were glass, never seen such polished edges on glass, but they weren't more than 8mm thick (set about half way through the frame).

The closest I can describe the rectangular black plastic frames is http://www.eyeglasses.com/product/tryiton.page?x=60&y=8&variation_id=980969830 . I didn't talk to her because she was on the cell phone the whole time... and I knew I'd regret not getting more information. Oh well, guess I'll be having "wet" dreams for the next few days. :-)

J.


Julian 01 May 2003, 22:52

There are people who are myopic in one eye and hyperopic in the other; there was a discussion about this on one of the threads here a few weeks ag and I mentioned a guy I met when we were both patients in the ENT ward who was a high myope in one eye and a moderate hyperope in the other. he was one fo the first people I ever met who wore contact lenses (I'm going back a long way) which saved him problems of adjusing to different sizes images in the two eyes.

Love and kisses, Jules.


Alan 01 May 2003, 22:41

Stingray,

I've never known anyone with such a strong difference in Rx between their eyes. I did have a friend in middle school who was quite nearsighted in one eye and not so nearsighted in the other -- looking back, I'd say he was about -5/-6 in the more nearsighted eye and about -1/-1.5 in the other eye. He had had some abnormal development on one side of his body, too -- he had one arm that was very short; anatomically, I think it was just a forearm, without any upper arm. I think he also had some scoliosis (spinal curvature), which is pretty expectable just from the heavier arm on one side. Other than the arm and the vision, he was pretty normal.

Differences seem to diverge more as precriptions go up - a colleague at work has about -15 in one eye and about -18 in the other eye. The difference of -3 would seem a lot bigger if it were -2 vs -5.

Anyway, developmental anomalies are probably involved in a lot of cases of great difference between one eye and the other. By our genetics, we are supposed to be very close to symmetrical as far as the eyes go, so that's probably why it's normal for eyes to have close to the same prescription. I think there might be an instability in the way prescriptions are given out that might tend to make prescriptions diverge as they get stronger -- one eye gets a stronger prescription, so it is under more pressure to adjust, and next time it has changed more than the other eye; if this repeats a few times, one eye gets a significantly stronger prescription. I am sure there are also just random factors that come into play and make prescriptions change more in one eye than the other.


Stingray 01 May 2003, 17:35

Recently I came across several pairs of eyeglasses with different prescriptions in each lens. I always thought that most eyeglass prescriptions were pretty close as far as strength goes. My wife wears -3.50 and -3.75. Most other people I know who are myopic also have prescriptions that are no more than 1 diopter stronger or weaker when the eyes are compared. The glasses I am referring to have a correction of about -4.25 in the left eye and -11.50 in the right eye. This is more than a 7 diopter difference. How does that happen? How can one eye become more myopic than the other eye to such a degree? I always thought the degression of one's vision worked in tandem with both eyes. In other words, if your right eye needed an additional correction of -.25 , then you left would need a correction of .-25 more or less. It just seems strange that a person could have such a lopsided prescription. Has anyone here on eye scene ever come across a prescription where the numbers are so diverse?


Tammy 01 May 2003, 00:47

Johnnyb555, i don't know why there aren't more women who like strong glasses. I enjoyed having him look through my glasses. If you've read my post from long ago, you know that i really enjoy the comments people make when they look through my glasses, and also get a thrill out of looking through other people's glasses too.


johnnyb555 30 Apr 2003, 19:10

Tammy,

Read your post about the guy who liked your strong glasses... how come there aren't more women who like men in strong glasses? Seems to alw