Is it true that wearing glasses makes your eyesight worse? It seems that even people who start wearing a weak prescription inevitably end up wearing them fulltime. A friend of mine was 30 when he first got glasses of -1, then at -1.25 he was wearing them alot, now only a few years later he's wearing them fulltime at -1.75. Is it that eyes get used to wearing some correction and get used to it or does the prescription actually make your eyes get weaker
People who need glasses but do not wear them get used to seeing and interpeting blurred images.. Then when they finally find out how clear things are, they take the glasses off and things seem to be much more blurred. It seems to them that it is "making thier eyes worse." when in reality they are finally getting a comparison between clear and blurred images.
Eyes get worse from growing longer, age, deleloping disease and other conditions. Has nothing to do with wearing glasses.
Could carry on about soft vs. hard vs. gas-permeable contacts on this subject, but your answer to your basic question is no.
Chip
Chip, doesn't that mean then that if you avoid wearing glasses your eyesight might get worse but you wouldn't realise because you'd be used to the blurry image - so you could go for a longer time not having to wear them? Therefore would it be true that my friend wouldn't be wearing them full time if he'd got used to the blurry image rather than the corrected one?
CLK:
I actually have a theory that eyes develop tropicly and an eye that is out of focus grows (becomes myopic) trying to grow to a point of focus. Hense PMMA contact lenses which gave the best va tended to statisticly retard most myopia. HGP lenses which are second best acuity tend to at least make things a little more stable. Soft lenses which are the poorest acuity providers in almost all circumstances (as compared to spectacles and other forms of contact lenses) actually speed up the progression of myopia.
This is my personal theory and I do not wish to spend the next few months defending it, but there it is.
Chip
CLK,CLK said:
Chip, doesn't that mean then that if you avoid wearing glasses your eyesight might get worse but you wouldn't realise because you'd be used to the blurry image - so you could go for a longer time not having to wear them? Therefore would it be true that my friend wouldn't be wearing them full time if he'd got used to the blurry image rather than the corrected one?
Chip has stated it very correctly and concisely, but to make it a little simpler let's say this:
When a person who needs prescription but either doesn't realize it or won't wear them "interprets" a blurry image what we are saying in escence is their vision is already blurred they just don't know it. They have no comparison for what clear is.
What you're referring to is called "accomodation" and that's a different matter altogether. At the age of 30 your friend has lost a lot of accomodation which is why there was a need for prescription in the first place. In even simpler terms your friend could not make out 20/20 on the doctors chart without a -1.00 script whether your friend thought they could see fine or not.
Wearing the script will not make the eye weaker although there are some "new" old stories out there saying that is does. The eye will accomodate for what it can. If the eye thinks blurry is normal then a person might not think they need glasses but the fact of the matter is they are still seeing blurry. This can pose a problem for them when driving (especially at night) or doing typical day to day things. If you can't read a street sign how would you know where you are or where you were going?
But like Chip said to your original question, no glasses don't make your eyes worse. To your second question, the answer is still no because your friend would still be a -1.75 if not worse without having worn glasses.
I hope this helps,
Darris C.
[QUOTE]chip anderson said:
CLK:
Soft lenses which are the poorest acuity providers in almost all circumstances (as compared to spectacles and other forms of contact lenses) actually speed up the progression of myopia.
Chip,
Without asking you to expound for months on your interesting theory, why do you say soft CL's speed up the progression of myopia? I haven't heard this one before, but then, I haven't been in the game for that long.
And while we're on the subject, do you believe that the rate of progression is relative to soft lens wear time?
eyevay:
As I said: " I believe that the eye develops by tropism." Much like mushrooms cracking the concrete if they start growning below concrete. Soft contact lenses provide the poorest vision dur to thier non-rigid nature, the fact that many (water, several plastics, etc) materials are involved in thier composition, and many factors are ignored in the fillling of the Rx.
Note one usuallly has about 3 fits per brand in soft contact lenses and an amazing amount of practioners use the everybody is a B-Cup phylosophy. Also for the most part cylinder correction is ignored unless it effects the va a lot. Some fitters think, 20/40 or more is adequate if the patient is not fussing too loud (and yes I mean on eyes capable of 20/20). Perhaps still worse, I suspect that even a majority of fitters do not perform any sort of a follow-up even once, many think just reading a chart and taking the all-knowing manufacturer's recommendation constitutes "fitting."
A great many don't event measure the corneal curvature prior to lens selection (just use 8.7 14.4 on everybody).
If this is true is it any supprise that these patients don't see well and the eye grows to try to achieve an optimum focus?
Chip
P.S. I suppose one could find a similar but smaller corelation in the various opthalmic (Oh, God here it comes) lens materials with less change in the wearers of glass, more in CR-39 and still more in polycarbonate. Maybe even a correlation between precribers who take the time to refract down to the best (as opposed to 20/20) acuity and refine the Rx to the nearest .12 diopter for both sphere and cylinder instead of the usual .25 diopter.
Chip (probably more than enough said) Anderson
Refractive errors such as this are due to either the combined refractive power of the cornea and crystalline lens being either too strong, bring the image to focus inside the retina; the accomodation of the lens can move it only further inside, so that necessitates the need for a minus lens to diverge the image to focus on the retina; if the error places the image behind the retina slightly, the lens accomodation can physically focus the image on the retina by bringing it forward, (lost yet?); so, a young person 1D farsighted might be fine without rx eyewear, a person needing a -1D, would need to wear them to see clearly. young people still growing, can experience worsening myopia, as their eyes physically develop into a more elongated shape, so even if the refractive power stays same, the need for more minus power will increase. So, how could anyone reason that wearing the glasses causes you to need them more?
From personal experience, and mainly to reiterate what has been said above.......
In layman's terms, 'accomodation' is where the muscles in your eyes, without the glasses that they need, squinch up to achieve better vision.
If you then wear your glasses full time for a while, your eye muscles will un-squinch. This is because in their relaxed state, with the proper correction, they see better un-squinched.
If you then take your glasses off, your eye muscles are all un-squinched and relaxed, so they don't see as well as originally, when they were squinched.
If you leave the glasses off, your eye muscles will squinch again, so you will see better than when you first take the glasses off, but not as well as with them on.
Often people's prescription gets stronger over time. This, combined with the squnch effect, makes people think the glasses are making their eyes worse.
Maria - thanks for the non-scientific explanation.
Does that mean you have to wear the glasses full time for a while (rather than part time/occasional) to get the benefit of the 'unsquinched' eye muscles and is the resulting unsquinched vision noticeably better to the average person? Is it okay to ask you what your prescription is?
clk, if anybody is as myopic as you are, all the "squmchin'" in the world won't help, not for an instant, now you could carry around anything with a pin hole in it,hold it up to one eye, and see quite well through the pin hole, but that seems awkward, especially fro driving....
CLK - Having the glasses on makes the eye muscles relax, so the longer you have them on the better, although there is no right and wrong.
My rx is -1.50/+0.75 right and left. So, not huge, but I do prefer to have them on.
Texas - don't be doubting the squinch!
Maria - have you always worn your glasses full time, or is it that your prescription has increased and you've found that its much better with than without?
I'd never thought about wearing mine more because I thought it was a small prescription but - with people here saying it would be beneficial - this week I have started to use them some more for day-to-day distance wear and am interested in what motivates people to take up more regular or full time wear.
Is it possible that not wearing a prescription like this could cause headaches?
CLK:
Yes not wearing a precription with cylinder (that part before the x sign) can give headaches. Have you ever tried to leave your glasses on for a whole day, and then evaluate: "Did that day go better than the other days without wearing your glasses?"
We still haven't got an answer on why you want to go without your glasses or why you are so worried about wearing them.
Chip
No I've never worn glasses all day, I'm pretty shy and I'm not sure how I'd handle the "I didn't know you wore glasses" comments. I guess I feel attractive w/o glasses and not sure how I feel about the way I'd look with them.
I've always assumed that what I see is pretty normal.
This week I've worn them a bit more and seen the difference. It was great to see well just walking down the street, but I felt very self-conscious and that if I can get by without them I should. I know what you're going to say! :hammer:
It is okay to feel self concious at first. I know I felt the same way when I first started to where my glasses for reading. I kept waiting to hear comments, etc.
Instead I actually got compliments. Everyone who reaches middle age will eventually where some form of vision correction. You just have a head start on them. This means you will be used to it, and might even delay that bifocal rx a bit more by giving your eyes the comfort they need now.
No single accessory can change your appearance or inhance your appearance like glasses. It can hide those bags under the eyes from not getting a good night's rest, it can enhance your natural skin tones, play up the color of your eyes, or even set a look or mood. Want to appear fashionalbe and funky, go for a bold plastic frame...want to appear elegant, go metallic and minimal...want to feel like a movie star, go for a Jackie O sunglass..
Glasses can be fun! not only functional. I know I like to wear different shapes and styles depending on what my plans are. I have a small plus script but I have been known to where my glasses all day to hide those bags or if I want to appear "more professional". I have a funky pair of rectangular torts that I wear for my safety glasses at work. I was really skitish on that one, but i get compliments all the time, not only from co-workers telling me how much they love the fun frames, but from patients who want a pair "just like those"
If you are really concerned about how you look in your glasses, make sure you do business with a reputable office and optician. They should be able to help you pick out something that will enahnce your appearance and still be "you". This includes both frame and lens options.
Cassandra
Jubilee, I agree with you - lots of people look stunning wearing glasses and they can be a real accessory. But I think there are still lots of negative images associated with wearing glasses ...
When I was a kid (not very long ago, and mentally I still am), kids who wore glasses, or 4 eyes as they're better known, were mocked and laughed at.
How things have changed! Specs are now another place to find a designer label along with the right trainers etc.. Most kids I know don't have any problem wearing glasses any more.
Some days I wish I needed them, could maybe hide a bit of my ugly mug behind!
Maria, the "squench" works on the +.75 eye; and btw, when you make up your glasses, have you tried flip-flopping base curves, like do the .75 on a 4.25 bc and the -1.50 on a 6.25.? We have pts with your 2D power difference; swithching bc's seems to help a lot....
I don't have a 2D difference. In fact, I haven't yet achieved 2D along any meridian!
I mean my Rx is -1.50 with a +0.75 cyl. In the right eye and in the left eye. I am ashamed to admit I have no idea what the axis is. :)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks