Follow-up on eye exercises to improve vision. (Was that on this ng?)

I heard on the radio about someone who was in Gabon as a Peace Corps
volunteer, and she was living in a very thick jungle, so thick if they
didn't keep cutting it back the area they lived in would turn into
jungle again in 2 weeks, or maybe 2 months. So they only cleared the
minimum amount of land that they needed, so in practice, one could
never look more than 10 feet away.

Then someone she knew who'd been living there for a year? went to
Kenya, wide plains and long views, but he couldn't see anything at
that distance because he was used to no more than 10 feet.

He was probably a young man too, though she didn't say. Maybe I'm
thinking he was in the Peace Corps too.


Anyhow, I think I almost do those exercises. In the day time, I look
to the other side of the room fairly frequently (hard to do so now, at
night, because the rest of the room is dark.) And I go outside!

But maybe I'll try them.

On Monday, November 18, 2013 10:44:26 AM UTC-8, micky wrote:
Follow-up on eye exercises to improve vision. (Was that on this ng?)



I heard on the radio about someone who was in Gabon as a Peace Corps

volunteer, and she was living in a very thick jungle, so thick if they

didn't keep cutting it back the area they lived in would turn into

jungle again in 2 weeks, or maybe 2 months. So they only cleared the

minimum amount of land that they needed, so in practice, one could

never look more than 10 feet away.



Then someone she knew who'd been living there for a year? went to

Kenya, wide plains and long views, but he couldn't see anything at

that distance because he was used to no more than 10 feet.

This sounds like an apocryphal tale There's no physiological reason for such a condition to exist. And I doubt strongly that the person's field of view was limited to 10 feet. I further doubt that the people could survive on what could be grown in a 10' plot (was that the width? the length? the square feet?



He was probably a young man too, though she didn't say. Maybe I'm

thinking he was in the Peace Corps too.


Anyhow, I think I almost do those exercises. In the day time, I look

to the other side of the room fairly frequently (hard to do so now, at

night, because the rest of the room is dark.) And I go outside!


But maybe I'll try them.

Not having been privy to the rest of the threat, I can only comment that you
might want to check into the validity of this scenario, whether through on-line research or by consulting an ophthamologist.

HB

Higgs Boson wrote:
But maybe I'll try them.

Not having been privy to the rest of the threat, I can only comment
that you
might want to check into the validity of this scenario, whether
through on-line research or by consulting an ophthamologist.


Ophthalmologists are very unlikely to recommend exercises. That's not how they
make their living. It did work for me. Mildly near sighted in my 30's, I did
them for about 6 months before I no longer needed my glasses. I did start with
some biofeedback training to learn to push my focus to the limits of both ends
of the range.

On 11/18/2013 7:57 PM, Bob F wrote:


Ophthalmologists are very unlikely to recommend exercises. That's not how they
make their living. It did work for me. Mildly near sighted in my 30's, I did
them for about 6 months before I no longer needed my glasses. I did start with
some biofeedback training to learn to push my focus to the limits of both ends
of the range.


I think you are confused The ophthalmologists I used do things like
that as well as surgery and other eye care. They will prescribe, but
not sell, eyeglasses. They are MDs that specialize in ryrs.

Optometrists prescribe and can sell eyeglasses.

Opticians fill prescriptions and sell eyeglasses.

Crew members on the international space station are not only required to do X amount of exercising daily like running teathered on a treadmill, but spend time looking on a device to exercise their eyes.

otherwise they cold loose the abilty to see things that are far away. like a few hundred feet. although theycoul still see the earth at a couple hundred miles away.

use it or loose it.......

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:57:23 -0700, Bob F wrote:

...snip....
Ophthalmologists are very unlikely to recommend exercises. That's not
how they
make their living. It did work for me. Mildly near sighted in my 30's, I
did
them for about 6 months before I no longer needed my glasses. I did
start with
some biofeedback training to learn to push my focus to the limits of
both ends
of the range.

Good for you! Takes a bit of self discipline.

As with almost everything associated with the body....
Use it, or lose it.

On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:36:35 -0700, bob haller wrote:

Crew members on the international space station are not only required to
do X amount of exercising daily like running teathered on a treadmill,
but spend time looking on a device to exercise their eyes.

otherwise they cold loose the abilty to see things that are far away.
like a few hundred feet. although theycoul still see the earth at a
couple hundred miles away.

use it or loose it.......

Didn't know that.

I started questioning the whole concept of wearing eyeglasses when I first
heard about split personality people having some characters with 20/20 and
some characters that required coke bottle bottom glasses. Seemed like
something more than 'camera construction' concept going on here. Then
later, from a TV ad showing 'glasses' with tiny holes to relax the muscles
in your eyes and remove the bias placed upon them by your glasses. Wearing
those glasses for even a short time did some wild things to my eyes in
straightening out the damage from using the 'crutches' of eyeglasses for
so many years.

For example, I am slightly near-sighted and have astigmatism in the left
eye. The left eye saw a standard TV not as 4:3 but actually as 3:4 it was
so bad. Playing pool the left hand corner looks about 6 inches lower,
downhill, those kinds of distortion. However, the left eye did NOT see any
distortion if a pinhole opening were placed in front of it. That intrigued
me, plus I could just as easily read the labels [tiny printing] on boxes
across the room as be able to read a six point type in a telephone book in
front of me! Something else is going on here. Those glasses, as primitive
as they were, actually reduced my near-sightedness from being restricted
driver to not restricted AND softened the astigmatism so the TV looked
more square than 3:4, but moving the right direction.

Which brings me to the point, Eye exercisers exist! Can we get that for
our home computers? Everybody spends at least an hour in front of one, why
not 'exercize the eyes while there? Like, wear a set of plain piezo-glass
LCD lenses alternatingly blank each eye and simultaneously flex the 'lens'
to focus near, focus far?

Now THAT would help a lot of people.

RobertMacy wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:36:35 -0700, bob haller
wrote:
Crew members on the international space station are not only
required to do X amount of exercising daily like running teathered
on a treadmill, but spend time looking on a device to exercise their
eyes. otherwise they cold loose the abilty to see things that are far away.
like a few hundred feet. although theycoul still see the earth at a
couple hundred miles away.

use it or loose it.......

Didn't know that.

I started questioning the whole concept of wearing eyeglasses when I
first heard about split personality people having some characters
with 20/20 and some characters that required coke bottle bottom
glasses. Seemed like something more than 'camera construction'
concept going on here. Then later, from a TV ad showing 'glasses'
with tiny holes to relax the muscles in your eyes and remove the bias
placed upon them by your glasses. Wearing those glasses for even a
short time did some wild things to my eyes in straightening out the
damage from using the 'crutches' of eyeglasses for so many years.

For example, I am slightly near-sighted and have astigmatism in the
left eye. The left eye saw a standard TV not as 4:3 but actually as
3:4 it was so bad. Playing pool the left hand corner looks about 6
inches lower, downhill, those kinds of distortion. However, the left
eye did NOT see any distortion if a pinhole opening were placed in
front of it. That intrigued me, plus I could just as easily read the
labels [tiny printing] on boxes across the room as be able to read a
six point type in a telephone book in front of me! Something else is
going on here. Those glasses, as primitive as they were, actually
reduced my near-sightedness from being restricted driver to not
restricted AND softened the astigmatism so the TV looked more square
than 3:4, but moving the right direction.
Which brings me to the point, Eye exercisers exist! Can we get that
for our home computers? Everybody spends at least an hour in front of
one, why not 'exercize the eyes while there? Like, wear a set of
plain piezo-glass LCD lenses alternatingly blank each eye and
simultaneously flex the 'lens' to focus near, focus far?

Now THAT would help a lot of people.

There are programs for that. Not sure how they would accomplish the near-far
stretches.

On 11/19/2013 8:51 AM, RobertMacy wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:36:35 -0700, bob haller wrote:

Crew members on the international space station are not only
required to do X amount of exercising daily like running teathered
on a treadmill, but spend time looking on a device to exercise their
eyes.

otherwise they cold loose the abilty to see things that are far
away. like a few hundred feet. although theycoul still see the earth
at a couple hundred miles away.

use it or loose it.......

Didn't know that.

I started questioning the whole concept of wearing eyeglasses when I
first heard about split personality people having some characters with
20/20 and some characters that required coke bottle bottom glasses.
Seemed like something more than 'camera construction' concept going on
here. Then later, from a TV ad showing 'glasses' with tiny holes to
relax the muscles in your eyes and remove the bias placed upon them by
your glasses. Wearing those glasses for even a short time did some
wild things to my eyes in straightening out the damage from using the
'crutches' of eyeglasses for so many years.

For example, I am slightly near-sighted and have astigmatism in the
left eye. The left eye saw a standard TV not as 4:3 but actually as
3:4 it was so bad. Playing pool the left hand corner looks about 6
inches lower, downhill, those kinds of distortion. However, the left
eye did NOT see any distortion if a pinhole opening were placed in
front of it. That intrigued me, plus I could just as easily read the
labels [tiny printing] on boxes across the room as be able to read a
six point type in a telephone book in front of me! Something else is
going on here. Those glasses, as primitive as they were, actually
reduced my near-sightedness from being restricted driver to not
restricted AND softened the astigmatism so the TV looked more square
than 3:4, but moving the right direction.

Which brings me to the point, Eye exercisers exist! Can we get that
for our home computers? Everybody spends at least an hour in front of
one, why not 'exercize the eyes while there? Like, wear a set of plain
piezo-glass LCD lenses alternatingly blank each eye and simultaneously
flex the 'lens' to focus near, focus far?

Now THAT would help a lot of people.

It would not, because it is bull****. From Quackwatch:

Since ancient times, many people have held the mistaken belief that
poor eyesight can be cured by special eye exercises. This belief was
brought to its highest state of fruition by a one-time reputable
physician, William Horatio Bates, M.D., who in 1920 published The Cure
of Imperfect Eyesight by Treatment Without Glasses.

In 1917, Bates teamed up with Bernarr Macfadden, a well known food
faddist who published the magazine Physical Culture. Together they
offered a course in the Bates System of Eye Exercises for a fee that
included a subscription to the magazine. This venture met with
considerable success and led many people to believe in the Bates
System. However, the big impact of Bates's work materialized after
publication of his book. This book attracted large numbers of
charlatans, quacks, and gullible followers who then published scores
of unscientific books and articles of their own on the subject of
vision. Extolling the Bates System, these authors urged readers to
"throw away" their glasses. Some of these writers even established
schools.

....It should be obvious that these exercises cannot influence eyesight
disorders as Bates claimed. Nearsightedness, farsightedness,
astigmatism, and presbyopia result from inborn and acquired
characteristics of the lens and the eyeball€”which no exercise can
change. As for eye diseases, the only thing the exercises can do is
delay proper medical or surgical treatment and result in permanent
impairment of vision. The claims Bates made in advertising his book
were so dubious that in 1929 the Federal Trade Commission issued a
complaint against him for advertising "falsely or misleadingly."

There is one rational method of eye training and eye
exercises€”orthoptics€”carried out under competent optometric and
medical supervision to correct coordination or binocular vision
problems such as "crossed eyes" and amblyopic ("lazy") eyes. If the
muscles that control eye movements are out of balance, the function of
one eye may be suppressed to avoid double vision. (The suppressed eye
is called an "amblyopic" eye.) Covering the good eye can often
stimulate the amblyopic eye to work again to provide binocular vision
for the patient. Orthoptics, surgery, or a combination of the two
often can improve problems in pointing and focusing the eyes due to
poor eye-muscle control.

Remember: no type of eye exercise can improve a refractive error or
cure any ailment within the eyeball or in any remote part of the body.

http://www.quackwatch.com/01Quackery.../eyequack.html

The article is a good read. It includes quite a list of quack
eye-exercise promoters and the legal action taken against them.

On 11/18/13 09:41 pm, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Ophthalmologists are very unlikely to recommend exercises. That's not
how they
make their living. It did work for me. Mildly near sighted in my 30's,
I did
them for about 6 months before I no longer needed my glasses. I did
start with
some biofeedback training to learn to push my focus to the limits of
both ends
of the range.


I think you are confused The ophthalmologists I used do things like that
as well as surgery and other eye care. They will prescribe, but not
sell, eyeglasses. They are MDs that specialize in ryrs.

Optometrists prescribe and can sell eyeglasses.

Opticians fill prescriptions and sell eyeglasses.

Obviously there are ophthalmologists and ophthalmologists. The one I
went to about 15 years ago was reluctant to give me a prescription that
I could take to an optician without a good deal of persuasion on my
part. Then I found that the prescription he had given me was still
lacking one vital piece of information that was needed to obtain new
contact lenses. When I called to try to get the additional information,
he said, "Of we course we have that information here that we would use
if you were getting the lenses from us." Eventually the optician managed
to get the information that was needed.

Perce

Moe DeLoughan wrote:
Now THAT would help a lot of people.

It would not, because it is bull****. From Quackwatch:

Since ancient times, many people have held the mistaken belief that
poor eyesight can be cured by special eye exercises.........

Too bad. Eye exercises worked for me. I haven't needed glasses for 30 years,
other than occasional reading glasses the last few years for small print.

On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:29:20 PM UTC-8, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 11/18/13 09:41 pm, Ed Pawlowski wrote:



Ophthalmologists are very unlikely to recommend exercises. That's not

how they

make their living. It did work for me. Mildly near sighted in my 30's,

I did

them for about 6 months before I no longer needed my glasses. I did

start with

some biofeedback training to learn to push my focus to the limits of

both ends

of the range.





I think you are confused The ophthalmologists I used do things like that

as well as surgery and other eye care. They will prescribe, but not

sell, eyeglasses. They are MDs that specialize in ryrs.



Optometrists prescribe and can sell eyeglasses.



Opticians fill prescriptions and sell eyeglasses.



Obviously there are ophthalmologists and ophthalmologists. The one I

went to about 15 years ago was reluctant to give me a prescription that

I could take to an optician without a good deal of persuasion on my

part. Then I found that the prescription he had given me was still

lacking one vital piece of information that was needed to obtain new

contact lenses. When I called to try to get the additional information,

he said, "Of we course we have that information here that we would use

if you were getting the lenses from us." Eventually the optician managed

to get the information that was needed.



Perce

For prescriptions, I would always choose an optometrist.

I had an iffy experience with my ophthamologist years ago. He gave me a (hasty) prescription which turned out to be wrong. Since then, I have been going to the same optometrist for many years who gives painstakingly thorough examinations. If he detects something potentially amiss, he points it out and recommends an MD ophthamologist for follow-up. My optometrist and his wife, who practice together, are always taking high-level seminars for training on new information and procedures. They will cheerfully make adjustments for no charge if glasses get bent out of shape or..

HB

"Bob F" wrote:
Moe DeLoughan wrote:
Now THAT would help a lot of people.

It would not, because it is bull****. From Quackwatch:

Since ancient times, many people have held the mistaken belief that
poor eyesight can be cured by special eye exercises.........

Too bad. Eye exercises worked for me. I haven't needed glasses for 30 years,
other than occasional reading glasses the last few years for small print.

I never heard of eye exercises, yet I was trying it myself at times. I used
one eye at a time. I could see clearer when I put glasses back on. I always
found once I put my glasses on in the morning, I had to keep them on all
day. Glasses make the eyes lazy.

Greg

gregz wrote:
"Bob F" wrote:
Moe DeLoughan wrote:
Now THAT would help a lot of people.

It would not, because it is bull****. From Quackwatch:

Since ancient times, many people have held the mistaken belief that
poor eyesight can be cured by special eye exercises.........

Too bad. Eye exercises worked for me. I haven't needed glasses for
30 years, other than occasional reading glasses the last few years
for small print.

I never heard of eye exercises, yet I was trying it myself at times.
I used one eye at a time. I could see clearer when I put glasses back
on. I always found once I put my glasses on in the morning, I had to
keep them on all day. Glasses make the eyes lazy.

I used to do regular near far focusing "stretches". In five minutes, I could get
my near focus at half the distance as when I started. Over time, the improvement
was dramatic. I can no longer focus as close, 30 years later, but still
regularly read without glasses. Small print does push my limits now.

Doctors say exercise can't help vision. Doctors say you need more exercise. Why
do they think the muscles controling vision are any different?

On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:21:10 -0700, Moe DeLoughan wrote:

...snip... all the personal experience/information
It would not, because it is bull****. From Quackwatch:

...snip...excellent writing and to keep Aioe happyThe article is a good
read. It includes quite a list of quack eye-exercise promoters and the
legal action taken against them.


Yes, it is a good read, thank you for sharing. However, to make solid
scientific progress, just as one MUST question assertions, one must also
NOT ignore observations. At least the Germans [when they debunked 'water
witching'] added the caveat of, words to the effect, 'there may be more
involved than we controlled in our experiments' allowing all the
'observed' experiences to remain in tact without referring to those
experiences as 'bull****'.

Mankind will not make any progress in controlling life on earth with a
constant attitude of "that doesn't work" and "you can't do that"

On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 15:56:33 -0700, Bob F wrote:

Moe DeLoughan wrote:
Now THAT would help a lot of people.

It would not, because it is bull****. From Quackwatch:

Since ancient times, many people have held the mistaken belief that
poor eyesight can be cured by special eye exercises.........

Too bad. Eye exercises worked for me. I haven't needed glasses for 30
years,
other than occasional reading glasses the last few years for small print.

According to 'experts', your eye exercises didn't work. Go put on your
glasses.

On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 19:47:05 -0700, gregz wrote:

"Bob F" wrote:
Moe DeLoughan wrote:
Now THAT would help a lot of people.

It would not, because it is bull****. From Quackwatch:

Since ancient times, many people have held the mistaken belief that
poor eyesight can be cured by special eye exercises.........

Too bad. Eye exercises worked for me. I haven't needed glasses for 30
years,
other than occasional reading glasses the last few years for small
print.

I never heard of eye exercises, yet I was trying it myself at times. I
used
one eye at a time. I could see clearer when I put glasses back on. I
always
found once I put my glasses on in the morning, I had to keep them on all
day. Glasses make the eyes lazy.

Greg

Not sure 'lazy' is the exact term, how about 'conform'? I too found that
the earlier in the day I put on my glasses, the more I 'needed' them all
day.

On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 23:38:40 -0700, Bob F wrote:

...snip...
Doctors say exercise can't help vision. Doctors say you need more
exercise. Why
do they think the muscles controling vision are any different?

Exellent example of a breakdown in logic.

Along the line of giving 'bad' advice ...

Rats fed poison with tender, loving care have a surprisingly high survival
rate. Not that 'bad medical advice' is 'poison'; just came to mind as I
read your reply.

On 11/20/2013 9:02 AM, RobertMacy wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:21:10 -0700, Moe DeLoughan wrote:

...snip... all the personal experience/information
It would not, because it is bull****. From Quackwatch:

...snip...excellent writing and to keep Aioe happyThe article is a
good read. It includes quite a list of quack eye-exercise promoters
and the legal action taken against them.


Yes, it is a good read, thank you for sharing. However, to make solid
scientific progress, just as one MUST question assertions, one must also
NOT ignore observations. At least the Germans [when they debunked 'water
witching'] added the caveat of, words to the effect, 'there may be more
involved than we controlled in our experiments' allowing all the
'observed' experiences to remain in tact without referring to those
experiences as 'bull****'.

Mankind will not make any progress in controlling life on earth with a
constant attitude of "that doesn't work" and "you can't do that"

That may be, but it is no more damaging than the OP assertion that
glasses are totally unnecessary and all you need are exercises.

I am extremely near sighted. I've done the exercises and worn the patch
to no avail. If the OP thinks it worked for him, then it did. I know
it didn't work for me.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 08:03:53 -0700, Mike wrote:

...snip...
That may be, but it is no more damaging than the OP assertion that
glasses are totally unnecessary and all you need are exercises.

I am extremely near sighted. I've done the exercises and worn the patch
to no avail. If the OP thinks it worked for him, then it did. I know
it didn't work for me.

ah, a breath of sanity. A well stated observation. Seems the only truth we
can get from this thread is that vision is complicated.

Curious. Does 'time of day' affect how well your vision works, or is it
constant? Or, food? Like after eating such and such, I have blurry vision.

On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 7:03:53 AM UTC-8, Mike wrote:
On 11/20/2013 9:02 AM, RobertMacy wrote:

On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:21:10 -0700, Moe DeLoughan wrote:



...snip... all the personal experience/information

It would not, because it is bull****. From Quackwatch:



...snip...excellent writing and to keep Aioe happyThe article is a

good read. It includes quite a list of quack eye-exercise promoters

and the legal action taken against them.





Yes, it is a good read, thank you for sharing. However, to make solid

scientific progress, just as one MUST question assertions, one must also

NOT ignore observations. At least the Germans [when they debunked 'water

witching'] added the caveat of, words to the effect, 'there may be more

involved than we controlled in our experiments' allowing all the

'observed' experiences to remain in tact without referring to those

experiences as 'bull****'.



Mankind will not make any progress in controlling life on earth with a

constant attitude of "that doesn't work" and "you can't do that"



That may be, but it is no more damaging than the OP assertion that

glasses are totally unnecessary and all you need are exercises.



I am extremely near sighted. I've done the exercises and worn the patch

to no avail. If the OP thinks it worked for him, then it did. I know

it didn't work for me.

What you're describing is called "determination bias".

HB

On 11/20/2013 10:43 AM, RobertMacy wrote:

Curious. Does 'time of day' affect how well your vision works, or is it
constant? Or, food? Like after eating such and such, I have blurry vision.


It improves for the first couple of hours and maintains that level the
rest of the day. No change due to food.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 02:47:05 +0000 (UTC), gregz
wrote:

"Bob F" wrote:
Moe DeLoughan wrote:
Now THAT would help a lot of people.

It would not, because it is bull****. From Quackwatch:

Since ancient times, many people have held the mistaken belief that
poor eyesight can be cured by special eye exercises.........

Too bad. Eye exercises worked for me. I haven't needed glasses for 30 years,
other than occasional reading glasses the last few years for small print.

I never heard of eye exercises, yet I was trying it myself at times. I used
one eye at a time. I could see clearer when I put glasses back on. I always
found once I put my glasses on in the morning, I had to keep them on all
day. Glasses make the eyes lazy.

Greg


An interesting issue. Do glasses make the eyes "lazy" or is something
else going on here? Or some combination. One theory I have is that
the brain is able to correct for *some* types of optical distortion,
such as a certain degree of astigmatism. Like others, I have noticed
that the more I wear my glasses the more I seem to need them but
partly because the more I get used to seeing *really clearly* the less
satisfied I am with the "ok but not really clear" vision I get without
the glasses. Getting back to my early point about the brain being
able to correct some defects... for the brain to do this it needs to
have some consistency is the "picture" being sent to it from the eye.
If you NEVER wear glasses then the brain gets used all the time to
recognize the "bad patterns" and correct what it can and can get
pretty good at it. Just like if you have one eye good for near vision
and one eye good for far vision the brain works the two of them
together seamlessly so you don't even consciously realize that as
things get farther away the "picture" from one eye is getting used
less and less and that picture from the other eye more and more. So
the more you use glasses, the less your brain "trains" to correct the
defects and it gets less and less able to do so. So when you Don't
put your glasses on first thing in the morning your brain gets started
right way trying to "fix" things. If you put your glasses on right
away you are telling your brain "don't fix things today" and you wind
up needing the glasses all day. All this is based on the "defects"
being relatively modest. I don't think anyone who needs a high
diopter correction, or who has bad astigmatism is likely to be able to
"train their brain" to overcome it.

That's my wacko theory.

On Sat, 23 Nov 2013 22:54:38 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 02:47:05 +0000 (UTC), gregz
wrote:

"Bob F" wrote:
Moe DeLoughan wrote:
Now THAT would help a lot of people.

It would not, because it is bull****. From Quackwatch:

Since ancient times, many people have held the mistaken belief that
poor eyesight can be cured by special eye exercises.........

Too bad. Eye exercises worked for me. I haven't needed glasses for 30 years,
other than occasional reading glasses the last few years for small print.

I never heard of eye exercises, yet I was trying it myself at times. I used
one eye at a time. I could see clearer when I put glasses back on. I always
found once I put my glasses on in the morning, I had to keep them on all
day. Glasses make the eyes lazy.

Greg


An interesting issue. Do glasses make the eyes "lazy" or is something
else going on here? Or some combination. One theory I have is that
the brain is able to correct for *some* types of optical distortion,
such as a certain degree of astigmatism. Like others, I have noticed
that the more I wear my glasses the more I seem to need them but
partly because the more I get used to seeing *really clearly* the less
satisfied I am with the "ok but not really clear" vision I get without
the glasses. Getting back to my early point about the brain being
able to correct some defects... for the brain to do this it needs to
have some consistency is the "picture" being sent to it from the eye.

I think you make some good points. When I was younger my eyes were
20/10-20/15. I never needed glasses until I turned 54 (and "retired").
I soon wore "cheaters" and within the next year went directly to
bifocals. Somewhere in there I developed an astigmatism. Apparently
the muscles in the eye can correct for astigmatism until the eye
"locks up" when presbyopia sets in.

A year ago I started wearing "distance" glasses, in addition to ones
for computer use. It really came down to being able to see better
with glasses than without. I can still get by without the distance
glasses and recently passed a driving test without them.

If you NEVER wear glasses then the brain gets used all the time to
recognize the "bad patterns" and correct what it can and can get
pretty good at it. Just like if you have one eye good for near vision
and one eye good for far vision the brain works the two of them
together seamlessly so you don't even consciously realize that as
things get farther away the "picture" from one eye is getting used
less and less and that picture from the other eye more and more. So
the more you use glasses, the less your brain "trains" to correct the
defects and it gets less and less able to do so. So when you Don't
put your glasses on first thing in the morning your brain gets started
right way trying to "fix" things. If you put your glasses on right
away you are telling your brain "don't fix things today" and you wind
up needing the glasses all day. All this is based on the "defects"
being relatively modest. I don't think anyone who needs a high
diopter correction, or who has bad astigmatism is likely to be able to
"train their brain" to overcome it.

Certainly the brain can correct minor (even some major) issues but
it's not that quick and the brain will remember longer than overnight.
When I was in high school they showed experiments with glasses that
inverted the image. It took a couple of days for the experiment
subjects to re-invert the image but after that it happened
increasingly faster. I find that with lens changes (size, bifocal vs.
progressive, etc.).


That's my wacko theory.

....at least that's my experience.