Life is a whole lot better without glasses, apart from the blurry vision. I can touch any part of my face without consideration for a fragile appliance sitting on my head. I can take my shirt off or put it on without damaging anything. I can lay my head on my pillow. I can do all these things without delay when I’m not wearing glasses.
The downside is that my uncorrected vision could use some serious improvement. I’ve adapted to being unglassed and I get around comfortably. My work at the computer isn’t slowed down too much. I find myself bringing my head in for a closer look at times, but I can keep it at the same distance I usually work from, 18 inches (which is probably too close).
Today I continued learning about the various methods of vision correction. I found out that the idea of removing my glasses for a month falls under relaxation, while other philosophies add or emphasize strengthening the muscles that control the eyes with various exercises. Some books suggest nothing but relaxation techniques like removing glasses as the way to correct vision. The other school of thought says that although relaxation is valuable, only actively working the eyes can produce results. They say that the many people who fail to achieve any vision correction have either not bothered with strengthening exercises, gave up on them, or didn’t do enough.
I’m inclined to believe the strengthening people, so I will be testing those techniques as well as relaxing my eyes every chance I get.
Much of the literature I’ve found is hard to read or just plain archaic, which certainly lends to the air of pseudoscience. Not long after I had that thought, however, I remembered a recent newspaper article I saved and dug it up. It’s a little blurb from the mainstream media that actually casts some doubt on the purely genetic interpretation of myopia. These nice people say:
The number of Americans who need glasses is rising sharply, according to a new study at the National Eye Institute. The scientists, writing in a recent issue of Archives of Opthalmology, found a 66% increase in myopia — the medical term for nearsightedness — since the 1970s, equalling 47 million people. … What’s more, there was a swing from mild to more severe myopia over the 30-year period.”
Parade Magazine, February 7, 2010
Ah, Parade Magazine. Now you can see what quality literature I read! Actually, I’m lucky if I even get to Parade Magazine when I read the newspaper. I usually read only the comics*. But I digress…
So myopia has increased 66% in the last 40 years? What could be the reason? As the article explains later: “The reason for the increase is unknown…” Since we all know that myopia is a genetic disease, the dramatic increase must be due to rapid evolution… NOT!
Seriously, little statistics like that remind me why I’m doing this experiment. The issue is far from settled. It appears that years of near work and glasses wearing both cause and worsen myopia. I’m almost certain that we didn’t evolve to become half-blind by our teenage years. The main question is whether the damage is permanent or reversible?
As I read through this archaic semi-medical literature, I’m encountering many different theories along with many possible solutions — many more than I realized. Some of the natural vision people even claim that you can’t fix your vision once it’s degraded past a certain point. I’m willing to try, though.
Once I sort through it all, I will be able to post more specifics about my own program.
By the way, to be fair to the article I mentioned above, they did quote a doctor who blames lifestyle. And it ended by saying that studies show that children who spend more time outdoors have less myopia. But it says nothing about what mechanism may be leading to all of this glasses wearing, or what might be done to either prevent or reverse it. The article doesn’t challenge anything; this alarming increase in nearsightedness is passed along as a curiosity that researchers don’t know what to do with.
*It’s been fifteen years since Calvin and Hobbes ended and the comics page still isn’t the same.
